By Hector Gonzalez
Staff Writer

June 23, 2015 -- Santa Monica Police officers no longer will be able to conduct no-warrant checks of local hotel and motel guest registries after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a similar ordinance in the City of Los Angeles.

Motel chain owners Naranjibhai Patel and Ramilaben Patel and the Los Angeles Lodging Association representing about 40 hotel owners sued Los Angeles in 2003 over the city’s municipal code ordinance requiring hotel and motel owners to turn over guest registries to police upon request or face fines and possible jail time.

Santa Monica and dozens of other cities around the country have similar ordinances. The SMPD has used the local ordinance primarily for vice enforcement, said Sgt. Rudy Camarena, the department spokesman.

Los Angeles officials contended the random registry inspections were an important police tool because they discouraged criminals from using motel and hotel rooms for prostitution, child exploitation and other illicit activities.

But in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said the practice is unconstitutional because it penalizes hotel and motel owners “for declining to turn over their records without affording them any opportunity for pre-compliance review.”

The Court ruled law-enforcement officials must first get a warrant or subpoena to inspect guest registry information. The Court called such inspections “administrative searches.”

“In order for an administrative search to be constitutional, the subject of the search must be afforded an opportunity to obtain a pre-compliance review before a neutral decision-maker,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority.

“We see no reason why this minimal requirement is inapplicable here,” she wrote.

The ruling impacts Santa Monica, which has a similar ordinance in its municipal code governing hotel and motel operations.

Municipal Code Section 4.08.240 requires operators to keep detailed information on registering guests. The information “shall be open to any police officer in the state” for inspection, the code says.

Camarena said Monday’s ruling will mean a change in local police practices.

“Once the Supreme Court gives direction, we train our personnel to make sure they are aware of the Supreme Court dictate,” said Camarena.

Police and other officials have long complained about prostitution and child sex exploitation occurring at motels. Earlier, a lower court, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, upheld L.A.’s ordinance as a “reasonable and measured” response to the city’s goal to “fight crime in hotels and motels.”

In March, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring motel owners who receive housing voucher reimbursements from the county to post signs “stating that they will not participate in or allow any form of sex trafficking to take place in their facilities.”

But the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that “nothing inherent in the operation of hotels poses a clear and significant risk to public welfare.”

The Court listed only four industries where government oversight trumped privacy rights and the need for search warrants prior to police inspections: auto junkyards, the mining industry, liquor sales and firearms dealers.