New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed inclined to let the police in Los Angeles inspect hotel and motel guest registries without permission from a judge.

A lawyer for the city, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, told the justices that such surprise inspections are vital to law enforcement.

“This case is about whether to deprive scores of cities of one of the most effective tools that they have developed to deter human trafficking, prostitution and drug crimes that have seized the ground in America’s hotels and motels,” he said.

That argument seemed attractive to a majority of the justices in light of Supreme Court decisions allowing only minimal constitutional protection for closely regulated businesses like junkyards and pawnshops.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said those decisions stopped short of allowing inspection of the records of “virtually every public accommodation entity, whether it’s a telephone company or a day school or a hospital.”

A group of motel owners challenged the Los Angeles ordinance, saying it violated their businesses’ privacy rights. Thomas C. Goldstein, one of their lawyers, said his clients did not object to the requirement in the law that they keep records about their guests. They wanted only, he said, the opportunity to challenge in court the rare searches to which they objected.

Mr. Goldstein stressed the ordinance’s limited aims. It was not meant to detect crime, he said, but merely to deter it by discouraging criminals from using hotels and motels where they have to register.

“They don’t look at the records to find criminals,” Mr. Goldstein said of the police. “All they do is look at the records to make sure we’re keeping records.”

Court challenges should be allowed, he went on, to make sure the police do not harass motel owners or use their information improperly.

Several justices said that was needlessly convoluted in light of what they said were the motels’ limited privacy rights.

“This case does not involve the guests,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “It’s just the hotel who’s objecting.”

The motel owners’ position, he said, amounted to this: “You can’t see my register. It’s dear to me.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy added that the ordinance was backed by historical practice.

“Innkeepers have been regulated, not for decades, but they’ve been regulated for centuries, and they have duties to the public that are enforceable,” he said.

Mr. Goldstein acknowledged that “we’ve kept these records and innkeepers have kept these records for time immemorial.” But he said they contained “quite proprietary information.”

“They are every record of our business transactions,” he said. “We use this information to keep in touch with our customers.”

Justice Scalia sounded doubtful.

“Motel 6 does this?” he asked. “Jeez, I’ve never received anything from them.”

Mr. Goldstein responded that Justice Scalia may not have signed up for the Motel 6 frequent guest program, adding that “this is an ordinance that applies to the Four Seasons and the Ritz-Carlton and everything else.”

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the Fish and Wildlife Service could conduct surprise inspections at hunting lodges. Her question suggested that a ruling in favor of the city might allow those inspections, too.

But Justice Scalia, her occasional hunting companion, said hunting accommodations were different. “I think there would be a big dispute,” he said, “with regard to private hunting lodges, whether you could require them to keep the records.”

Michael R. Dreeben, a lawyer for the federal government who argued in support of the city, seemed to think it best not to take sides.

“I will have to defer to members of the court on hunting lodges,” he said, adding that “there may be Second Amendment concerns that the court would weigh in the balance.”