CA9: Limited compelled information about rentals in City of LA not subject to REP

“Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment theories are without merit. The information sought by the Ordinance’s annual reporting requirement-including a given unit’s address, monthly rent, and other details routinely found in a ‘for-rent’ advertisement–does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hotop v.City of San Jose, 982 F.3d 710, 715-16 (9th Cir. 2020).” City of L.A. AIHM Hotel/Motel Ass’n v. City of L.A., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20101 (9th Cir. July 7, 2021).

It was clearly established in 2016 that the community caretaking justification for a police officer’s standby entry wasn’t reasonable without exigency, even before 2021’s Caniglia v. Strom. Reversed. Clemons v. Couch, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20112 (6th Cir. July 7, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.