Today the Supreme Court decided four cases as the end of its Term comes shortly to an end. Of the four, three are important to local government. One changes dramatically how local governments deal with the problems of hotels being used for criminal activity. In Los Angeles v. Patel, the Supreme Court concluded that a Los Angeles ordinance that required hoteliers to keep and maintain guest registries and to make them available to the police upon request violated the hoteliers Fourth Amendment rights. The decision divided the Court 5-4 with Justice Sotomayor writing for the majority and Justices Scalia and Alito writing dissents. The Court considered two questions: whether facial challenges to statutes can be brought under the Fourth Amendment and, if so, whether the provision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is facially invalid. The Court held that "facial challenges can be brought under the Fourth Amendment." And it held that "the provision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that requires hotel operators to make their registries available to the police on demand is facially unconstitutional because it penalizes them for declining to turn over their records without affording them any opportunity for precompliance review." The Los Angeles Municipal Code at issue compels "[e]very operator of a hotel to keep a record" containing specified information concerning guests and to make this record "available to any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection" on demand. Los Angeles Municipal Code §§41.49(2), (3)(a), (4) (2015). Although other rights protected by the Bill of Rights have been reviewed based on a facial challenge and found to violate the Constitution, because the Fourth Amendment only protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures a facial challenge seemed unlikely to prevail until today; although, Justice Sotomayor cited to a number of cases in which she found support for the majority's position that a facial challenge to a law based on the Fourth Amendment is nothing new. After finding that a facial challenge could be mounted under the Fourth Amendment to attack the law at issue, the Court concluded that the law failed muster because it did not allow the hotelier the comfort of a neutral review prior to the search. To be clear, we hold only that a hotel owner must be afforded an opportunity to have a neutral decisionmaker review an officer's demand to search the registry before he or she faces penalties for failing to comply. Actual review need only occur in those rare instances where a hotel operator objects to turning over the registry. Moreover, this opportunity can be provided without imposing onerous burdens on those charged with an administrative scheme's enforcement. For instance, respondents accept that the searches authorized by §41.49(3)(a) would be constitutional if they were performed pursuant to an administrative subpoena. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36-37. These subpoenas, which are typically a simple form, can be issued by the individual seeking the record-here, officers in the field-without probable cause that a regulation is being infringed. See See, 387 U. S., at 544 ("[T]he demand to inspect may be issued by the agency"). Issuing a subpoena will usually be the full extent of an officer's burden because "the great majority of businessmen can be expected in normal course to consent to inspection without warrant." Barlow's, Inc., 436 U. S., at 316. Indeed, the City has cited no evidence suggesting that without an ordinance authorizing on-demand searches, hotel operators would regularly refuse to cooperate with the police. No doubt many of you will find comfort in Justice Sotomayor's revelation that getting an administrative warrant is a simple process. She also answers those who express fear that the records might be adjusted while the officer awaits the warrant by noting that they can be seized and held pending the issue of the warrant under the authority of Riley v. California decided last term. This appears to be one major point of difference between the majority and Justice Scalia. Long story short, IMLA participated with the State and Local Legal Center in filing a brief in support of Los Angeles in this case. We also worked with the City and our brief writers to point out the vast number of communities with hotel registry laws and their long history. Justice Scalia noted the large number of communities whose laws would be affected in his dissent. Obviously, communities who have these laws will need to revise them or consider other methods of enforcing them, perhaps with that easily obtained subpoena that Justice Sotomayor envisions. Are there other ways to resolve this issue? Justice Sotomayor concluded that the records though required to be maintained by the city belonged to the hotels. What if the city required hotels and other similar facilities to provide it with records of its guests over the Internet instantaneously with registration? Would doing so help to achieve the goals of cities and counties that try to limit criminal activity at these establishments? Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director and General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1440 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 202-466-5424 x7110 Direct: 202-742-1016 Cell: 240-876-6790 Plan ahead: IMLA's Annual Conference October 3-8, 2015 - The Rio, Las Vegas, NV IMLA's Annual Seminar April 15-18, 2016 - Omni Shoreham, Washington D.C.