CA9: Motel owner can’t assert guests’ rights

“Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim fails because Plaintiffs cannot assert the rights of the Motel’s guests, Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014), and police entry into the Motel’s public areas does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, Patel v. City of Montclair, 798 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2015). The FAC’s remaining allegations concerning police entry into the Motel’s private areas and demand for registration records and video footage are too conclusory to state a claim, as they lack even basic details about the circumstances.” Patel v. City of L.A., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8444 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2025).

An abatement action against a motel that plaintiff bought wasn’t a Fourth Amendment violation as to him. Ahir v. City of L.A., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8449 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Seizure, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.