Legal Opinion
Naranjibhai Patel v. City of Los Angeles
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 17, 2012No. 08-56567PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge CLIFTON; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.
OPINION
CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs Naranjibhai Patel and Ramilaben Patel are owners and operators of motels in Los Angeles. They challenge the constitutionality of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) § 41.49, which requires operators of hotels in the City to maintain certain guest registry information and to make that information available to police officers on request. Appellants contend that LAMC § 41.49 is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because it authorizes unreasonable invasions of their private business…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican PartySupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- See v. City of SeattleSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- City of L. A. v. PatelSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Los Angeles v. PatelSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- People v. EubanksIllinois Supreme Court · 2019
- Gem Fin. Serv., Inc. v. City of N.Y.District Court, E.D. New York · 2018
- United States v. BrooksDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2012
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.