mr. rosenkranz, four minutes. >> thank you, your honor. we will start with the point and then circle back to the merits. as i hear mick -- mr. goldstein describing the rule, the only objections that are going to be raised our harassment and whether this is for a legitimate purpose. if that is the concern that is a graphic challenge. if the hotel has a cop coming in a five times a day and they say it is harassment -- the searches are inappropriate. if the officer is doing criminal investigation, rather than actually caring about whether my records are complete, that is an as applied challenge. the plaintiffs have not tried to demonstrate that this ordinance is unconstitutional in every circumstance. on pages 19-20 in our brief, there are numerous scenarios. mr. goldstein mentioned only one of them. when the hotels are required to unload their records to the police department every day, it may not even be a search. it is certainly less intrusive. >> that is not the statute. i did not understand those examples. >> justice kennedy, not at one.

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 barlows 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 barlows on the one hand and berger, dewey, bizwell on the other hand. that is the movibility of information. that is the transience of the information that you use to verify. in barlows, 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 it's the sort of

mr. rosenkranz, but isn't this just like our love really? that is not mr. on the following rationale, number one of people consent so that you go -- you know police going to hotels and would like to see 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 painting judicial review or you get an administrative board ex parte and you got a surprise examination if you want to. as we talked about all of those things in barlow's asked why these work with -- warrantless searches were not necessary. what makes this different? >> what makes this different is the tension -- distinction between barlow's on the one hand and berger, dewey, biswell on the other hand. and that is the mobility of information that used to verify. in barlow's if there is an unsafe condition, there is an unsafe condition and it's hard to see that this court said also in distinguished, biswell distinguished on the akron. if it's the sort of condition that doesn't change ove