Started By
Message
locked post

Washington state sues Motel 6

Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:10 pm
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73479 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:10 pm
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) has sued Motel 6 for providing guest lists to federal immigration agents, Ferguson’s office said Wednesday.

The office began investigating Motel 6 after two of the low-cost chain’s locations in Arizona provided its guests’ personal information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Six additional locations in Washington provided the same information covering more than 9,100 guests to ICE agents, Ferguson’s office said.

“Washingtonians have a right to privacy, and protection from discrimination,” Ferguson said in a statement announcing the lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court. “I will hold Motel 6 accountable and uncover the whole story of their disturbing conduct.”

Motel 6 did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

The disclosures, including driver’s license numbers, birth dates and license plate numbers, violated Motel 6’s privacy policies, Ferguson’s office said. They also violated the Consumer Protection Act and Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, it added, asserting Motel 6 knew ICE agents were targeting customers with Hispanic last names.

ICE agents visiting one of the Washington locations, in south Everett, would obtain a guest list from the front desk, circle Latino-sounding names, and on one occasion detained someone staying at the hotel, Ferguson’s office said. The south Everett location gave out personal information 228 times in a 225-day period, according to the lawsuit.

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled in the past that hotel guest registry information is private information, and that use by law enforcement organizations like ICE would violate the right to privacy enshrined in the state's constitution.

Ferguson’s office said it would ask the court to order Motel 6 to pay up to $2,000 for each customer’s information it gave to ICE agents — or at least $18.2 million, plus court costs and fees.

LINK
Posted by JackieTreehorn
Malibu
Member since Sep 2013
29199 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:12 pm to
didn't leave the light on?
Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot
Top secret lab
Member since Feb 2004
52833 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:13 pm to
Well, I think I agree with Washington state in this case.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
68273 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:13 pm to
I thought tipping law enforcement was legal and encouraged.

This is confusing.
Posted by starsandstripes
Georgia
Member since Nov 2017
11897 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:18 pm to
only if it suits the left agenda
Posted by Green Chili Tiger
Lurking the Tin Foil Hat Board
Member since Jul 2009
47697 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:18 pm to
Sounds like Motel 6 fricked up and Washington State is right.
Posted by MSMHater
Houston
Member since Oct 2008
22776 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:19 pm to
quote:

Well, I think I agree with Washington state in this case.


If the basis of their search was "a Hispanic sounding name", yea I think they fricked up.
Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot
Top secret lab
Member since Feb 2004
52833 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:22 pm to
quote:

If the basis of their search was "a Hispanic sounding name", yea I think they fricked up.


And, IF (as the report indicates) the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that the guest logs / info at hotels is considered "private"...then, the LEO would need a subpoena to get that info. The bullshite "fishing expedition" of getting EVERY guest's info and then looking for 'suspicious' names is frickERY.
This post was edited on 1/3/18 at 2:23 pm
Posted by tommy2tone1999
St. George, LA
Member since Sep 2008
6797 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:24 pm to
Motel 6 owns the list, they have the right to share it, in the exact same way Facebook shares your personal info with advertisers.
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
96506 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:25 pm to
Motel 6 is the epitome of “you get what you pay for.”

I don’t have much expectation of privacy from any chain where I have been to locations with the clerk’s desk behind a bulletproof partition.
Posted by MSMHater
Houston
Member since Oct 2008
22776 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:26 pm to
quote:

And, IF (as the report indicates) the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that the guest logs / info at hotels is considered "private"...then, the LEO would need a subpoena to get that info. The bullshite "fishing expedition" of getting EVERY guests info and then looking for 'suspicious' names is frickERY.



Would a federal LEO need a state subpoena for a federal activity (i.e. immigration/deportation)? Genuinely asking. Would Jeff Sessions need a CO subpoena to raid a weed shop under federal law? And I can't blame a motel shift manager for complying with overreaching federal authorities, though they probably had a deal going.
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:28 pm to
I'd be interested to see what the result is here. Obviously, privacy wise, Washington State is in the right here. However, with so many companies sharing data with the government about all sorts of things, I'm wondering if this case will make strange bedfellows of a lot of left leaning tech companies.
Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot
Top secret lab
Member since Feb 2004
52833 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:28 pm to
quote:

Would a federal LEO need a state subpoena for a federal activity



I don't know. But, my guess is "yes". Besides, this is the STATE's attorney enforcing the STATE's law.

I am a State's Rights dude (uhh...POST 1865ish )
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73479 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:29 pm to
quote:

I'd be interested to see what the result is here. Obviously, privacy wise, Washington State is in the right here. However, with so many companies sharing data with the government about all sorts of things, I'm wondering if this case will make strange bedfellows of a lot of left leaning tech companies.
Indeed.
Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot
Top secret lab
Member since Feb 2004
52833 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:30 pm to
quote:

However, with so many companies sharing data with the government about all sorts of things, I'm wondering if this case will make strange bedfellows of a lot of left leaning tech companies.



I think a BIG difference is that the State Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Hotel registration are PRIVATE. I doubt that Facebook pages, etc have the same ruling.


Posted by Clyde Tipton
Planet Earth
Member since Dec 2007
38800 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:33 pm to
quote:

“Washingtonians have a right to privacy, and protection from discrimination,”


I don't think they were looking for legal residents of Washington, but okay.
Posted by Terry the Tiger
Cypress, Texas
Member since Jul 2009
3494 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:34 pm to
Just curious. Do any of you read the Privacy Statements sent to you by banks and such? I know I don’t because I don’t think anything is private any more.
Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot
Top secret lab
Member since Feb 2004
52833 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:35 pm to
quote:

I don't think they were looking for legal residents of Washington, but okay.


Yes. But, the legal residents had THEIR info turned over, too.


It is like saying ICE can kick down YOUR front door because they weren't looking for YOU....just looking everywhere for illegals.



I am and "they have to go" guy. But, this is frickery and Fed Gov overreach
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:38 pm to
quote:

I think a BIG difference is that the State Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Hotel registration are PRIVATE. I doubt that Facebook pages, etc have the same ruling.



I recall a SCOTUS case not long ago covering this very same issue in California, actually.
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27832 posts
Posted on 1/3/18 at 2:39 pm to
quote:

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled in the past that hotel guest registry information is private information,


I find this hard to believe if it includes names. Show me the law where you can't provide the names of people staying at your establishment at your choosing. I'm not saying Motel 6 should have freely given their guests names to law enforcement but i do think they have a legal choice to do so.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram