In the case of City of Los Angeles, California v. Patel (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance requiring hotel operators to record and keep specific information about their guests for 90 days, which could be inspected by police without consent or warrant, was unconstitutional. The court held in a 5-4 decision that this violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority stating that "the provision fails to provide hotel owners with an opportunity for pre-compliance review." This ruling emphasized on protecting individual privacy rights over governmental interests in regulating businesses and preventing crime.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Los Angeles, California v. Patel, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. He contended that hotel owners should not be considered in "custody" when they are asked to produce their guest registries and thus do not have a right to refuse such requests without facing penalties. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that hotels were being subjected to searches without warrants or probable cause; instead, he saw these inspections as administrative procedures designed for regulatory compliance rather than criminal investigations. In his view, this distinction exempted them from needing traditional Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.