Motel 6 agrees to pay $8.9M to settle claims it helped ICE arrest guests

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dealmaker, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. "The court ruled that, at the least, a subpoena will now be required in order for cops to rifle through a guest registry. And if an owner objects, an administrative law judge can make the final call. Warrants will also do the trick."
     
    #11     Nov 8, 2018
  2. Good point. How dare they racially profile. How could they possible suspect who is illegal?


    upload_2018-11-8_10-6-15.jpeg


    upload_2018-11-8_10-6-46.jpeg

    I understand why they settled. Bad publicity,etc and probably a lot of their traffic is from illegals and criminals. But I see no legal issue here. They didn't deny them accommodations. They notified law enforcement. Big difference.

    The goal of the left is to intimidate law abiding, ie mainly white, people into keeping their eyes down and their mouths shut when they see suspicious activity by minorities. The NYT has had a series of pieces dedicated to this in which they slander concerned white women as "Becky's".
     
    #12     Nov 8, 2018
  3. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    There is a big difference between a business voluntarily handing over personal information about customers in response to a law enforcement request (which Motel 6 did) and compelling a business to hand over information (which is the situation this court decision addresses). Learn the difference.
     
    #13     Nov 8, 2018
    DTB2 likes this.
  4. Last try because no one is this dumb. The owner can voluntarily share it with police. They do not need a warrant if the owner just hands it over, like a good citizen might want to do to assist law enforcement. I know that is an alien concept for the left but it used to be part of the culture you guys are trying so hard to replace.
     
    #14     Nov 8, 2018
  5. The business voluntarily handing over information violates the 4th amendment rights of their guests which is why Motel6 got sued and knew they would lose the case and settled. A third party in this instance is not allowed to waive your 4th amendment rights without your consent or probable cause.
     
    #15     Nov 8, 2018
  6. OH and I am not the left so stop the bullshit. You are so lazy to have a discussion on facts you simply throw a bullshit political blanket to cover yourself.
     
    #16     Nov 8, 2018
    Cuddles likes this.
  7. Wrong again. Fourth Amendment only limits the government. This is like arguing with someone over whether the earth is flat. I'm done here.
     
    #17     Nov 8, 2018
  8. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    Where in any of the court documents on this case is the 4th amendment mentioned?

    HINT: It's not. This is not a 4th amendment case.

    Go read the settlement - https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Proposed_Settlement_Agreement-Stamped_1105018.pdf
     
    #18     Nov 8, 2018
  9. You said a warrant is not needed. I cited a Supreme Court case that shot down a statute that allowed police to demand records without a warrant. So to say categorically that a warrant is not needed is false. This point is not about the settlement which is a civil matter.
     
    #19     Nov 8, 2018
  10. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    A business can VOLUNTARILY hand over information to the government upon the government's request at any time. No warrant is needed. Nor does it violate any law. Every day in American millions of records including financial and personal information are handed over the government. from businesses.
     
    #20     Nov 8, 2018