1. Plaintiff
1.1. Patel
1.1.1. Naranjibhai and Ramilaben Patel are owners and operators of motels in Los Angeles.
2. Issue
2.1. Hotels in cities of Los Angeles privacy
2.2. Customers information available for 90 days after stay
3. Facts
3.1. Rule of Law
3.1.1. Hotels previously were required to hold customers information and present it to LAPD upon demand
3.2. Conclusion
3.2.1. Facial challenges under the Fourth Amendment are not categorically barred or especially disfavored and that section 41.49(3)(a) was facially unconstitutional
4. Defendant
4.1. City of Los Angeles
4.1.1. E. Joshua Rosenkranz
4.1.1.1. deterrent to crime
4.1.1.2. record for reference
5. Procedural History
5.1. Supreme Court of the United States
5.1.1. E. Joshua Rosenkranz
5.1.1.1. 5–4 majority opinion,
5.1.1.2. 4th Amendment
5.2. Lower Courts
5.2.1. U.S. District Court
5.2.2. Circuit court of appeals
5.2.3. En banc rehearing
6. Analysis
6.1. Impact
6.1.1. Customers privacy is held to a higher standard and not as easily available
6.2. Influence
6.2.1. The government is not able to forcefully gather private citizens information
6.3. Importance
6.3.1. Business and customers are able to confidently know that their information is private and not public