The Right 'To Be Secure': Los Angeles v. Patel

Abstract

In Los Angeles v. Patel, the U.S. Supreme Court provided additional guidance on the scope of the administrative exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court in Patel held that a city ordinance requiring operators to turn over guest registries to police on demand was facially unconstitutional because it denied operators the opportunity for pre-compliance review. The majority did not address Fourth Amendment text or values, and it made only vague, passing references to its practical implications. I argue in this short article that the Patel majority was quietly influenced by the “to be secure” text of the Fourth Amendment. At the time of the founding, the right “to be secure” guaranteed not simply a right to be “spared” unreasonable searches and seizures, but also a right to be left “tranquil” or “confident” against such government actions. The influence of the “to be secure” text on Patel can be gleaned from the majority’s emphasis on the “relative power” of hotel operators during police encounters, respondents’ counsel Tom Goldstein’s focus on “tranquility” at oral argument, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s lengthy discussion as amicus on the original meaning of “to be secure.” The upshot is that the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment appears to have played a silent but important role in Patel.