Motel 6 agrees to pay $8.9M to settle claims it helped ICE arrest guests Motel 6 has agreed to pay up to $8.9 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that its employees provided the personal information of several Latino guests to federal immigration officials, leading to their detainment. The class-action lawsuit, filed in January, encompasses the claims of eight hotel guests who said Motel 6 employees at two locations in Phoenix handed over private information to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials without a warrant. (New York Times)
Funny how you love law enforcement when it involves immigrants but its currupt when investigating trump. If Motel 6 somehow helped Muller your post would have been much diffrent.
Without a warrant. Western countries use warrant systems to keep a check on the police who tend to get more and more authoritarian and abusive without it. Simple. Without a warrant. You actually support this KKK but Con brains are tiny.
You typed buzz words but you conveyed no useful information. What are you attempting to highlight? If you are complaining about a surveillance state... and support Constitutional rights... welcome to our side. If you are claiming law enforcement violated constitutional rights you are going to have to be a more specific.
No warrant is required for a hotel to hand over your personal information to the government. No warrant is required for Facebook or Google to hand over your personal information to the government. No warrant is required for any business when handing your personal or financial information to the government. The only area requiring a warrant is your medical information in some instances. You should learn and understand the law before posting absurd nonsense on the internet.
Issue is that company gave information on many Latinos because they were Latino not because the company had reasonable suspicion that they were illegals. The case was about racial profiling.
Where did you get your law degree huh? Do you like to speak about things you know nothing about? US Supreme Court voids Los Angeles ordinance requiring hotel operators to turn over guest records on demand In a 5-4 opinion rendered on June 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that a Los Angeles municipal code provision violates the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures. The invalidated LA Code provision requires hotel operators to make guest records available to the police upon request. Katz v. United States (389 U.S. 347) is a case from 1967, long before the age of social media. However, the ruling has direct implications for social media privacy. Katz found that the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches does not apply to information that a person knowingly exposes to the public. The Fourth Amendment does apply, however, to information that an individual attempts to preserve as private. So your private information handed over to a hotel is not intended for the public like a facebook page. If police want it the need for a warrant is to ensure a narrowed scope of search is done and police just don't go fishing via unreasonable searches. To say NO warrant is required for any business to turn over your private/personal information is just ignorant.
You maybe need to check into getting a refund of your law degree. The LA law "required" them to turn it over. A business is perfectly free to voluntarily assist law enforcement, provided there is no other legal impediment, eg medical privacy laws. You owe gwb an apology.
The law required motel owners to hand over information when requested without a warrant. The court struck down that law as unconstitutional. Therefore the statement that the police do NOT need a warrant to get your private information is FALSE. Try again. It is a simple factual ruling. To say police can access all these records WITHOUT a warrant is false and I demonstrated that easily with just one Supreme Court case that says this is not true. Bank records also require a warrant or the bank could be liable to the customer. It is not saying they cannot access them with due process before a judge via a subpeona or warrant, it is that they in most cases will be required to have one before demanding the information.