mr. rosenkranz. mr. rosenkranz: thank you, your honor. let me start with the facial point and then circle back to the, to the merits. so as i hear mr. goldstein describing the rule, the only objections that are going to be raised are harassment and whether this is for a legitimate purpose. but if that's the concern, that's a classic as-applied challenge. if a hotel has a cop coming up to them five times a day, they come in and say, this is really harassment. these searches are and if the if it's the purpose of the officer, he's doing criminal investigation rather than actually caring about whether my records are complete, that is an as-applied challenge. now, the plaintiffs have not even tried to demonstrate that this ordinance is unconstitutional in every circumstance. on pages 19 to 20 of our brief we develop numerous scenarios, and mr. goldstein mentioned only one of them. so, for example, where the hotel is required to upload the records to the police department every day, it may not even be a search, but it's certainly less intrusive

mr. rosenkranz, why isn't this like bar lows? it's not necessary on the following rationale. number one, most people will consent. so you go, the police go into a hotel and say we'd like to see your registry, most people are going to consent. if somebody says no, and there's a real basis for believing that the evidence is going to be altered or destroyed, you can seize it pending judicial review. or you can get an administrative warrant ex parte and conduct a surprise examination if you want to. we talked about all of those things in bar lows about why that suggested that these warrantless searches were not necessary. what makes this different? >> your honor, what makes this different is the distinction between bar lows on the one hand and berger, dewy, bizwell on the other hand. that is the movibility of information. that is the transens of the information that you use to verify. in bar lows, if there is an unsafe condition there is an unsafe condition. it's hard to see. this court said it also and distinguished -- this was distinguished on that ground. if you -- if it's the

mr. rosenkranz. >> thank you, mr. chief justice 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 and drug crimes that have seized the ground in america's hotels and motels. the ordinance in questions is the least intrusive inspection scheme this court has ever encountered. it is limited to showing the police a single book containing only information that the hotels transcribed specifically for the city and that they have been turning over to the police by operation of law for 150 years. >> could you first -- two questions. is the information that they have been keeping for 150 years the same? because looking at the requirements, the early information was basically somebody's name and i'm not even sure their address. today's registry and requirements have information that federal law doesn't permit to be disclosed. like driver's license. credit card information. you can't disclose that information. >> the interest, however, have been pretty much

mr. rosenkranz. >> let me start with the facial point and circled back to the merits. as i hear mr. goldstein describing the move the only objections that going to be raised are harassment and whether this is for a legitimate purpose but if that is the concern, is a classic as applied challenge. if hotel has a copy coming to them five times a day they say this is really harassment these searches are inappropriate. if it is the purpose of the officer doing criminal investigation rather than actually caring about whether my records are complete, that is and has applied challenge. plaintiffs of not tried to demonstrate that this ordinance is unconstitutional in every circumstance. pages 19 to 20 we develop numerous scenarios and mr. goldstein mentioned only one of them. for example where hotel is required to upload records to the police department everyday it may not even be a surge but it is less intrusive. >> that is not this statutes. didn't the understand those examples. some of those examples please connect without them. >> not that one. some of them, some of them the ordnance has