If ICE had compelled Motel 6 to hand over the lists, that would be a very different thing and we would be having a very different conversation.

But that's not what happened, and let's not pretend like that is what happened.

ICE asked nicely, expecting to be turned down by Motel 6 like most other hotel chains did. But Motel 6 went along with the request without any sort of coercion and in fact in violation of local consumer protection laws prohibiting such data release absent a countervailing legal requirement (such as a subpoena) requiring them to turn over such information.

How does a government agent ask you to break the law nicely? ICE could ask me anything as nicely as they want and I'd still feel compelled. They are in an immense position of power over Motel 6 here.

This is all from the original complaint:

https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Ano...

https://www.atg.wa.gov/motel-6-settlement-claim-information

Do we know how ICE asked for these records? Because, from everything else I've ever seen about law enforcement making such requests, there's nothing nice about it, and there's everything coercive about it.

And it's a scary kind of coercion because they do have the force of the state backing them up, in a way that plays on our built-in desire to please authority, built-in desire to not rock the boat, and built-in fear of consequences of the crushing weight of the state pummeling down on us.

People generally regard law enforcement with a mix of fear and antipathy, because we know that, despite the checks and balances that exist, they can ruin lives and face no consequence for doing so.

So when ICE comes and asks, however nicely they may actually phrase it (though I don't expect they said "please" and "thank you,"), they're also coming at these hoteliers with a very big stick.

It's just shitty that the hoteliers did, in fact, cave and hand over this data.

Let's get this straight guys:

If ICE had used any coecion at all to get the guest lists, Motel 6 wouldn't be in trouble with the state of Washington. Motel 6 is in trouble because they violated the law voluntarily.

ICE deals with businesses differently than they deal with individuals. You're all imagining scenarios which did not happen.

This isn't like it was just people caving to law enforcement in the moment, it was codified Motel 6 policy:

> 4.3 ICE's usual practice was to come to Motel 6's reception desk and request the guest list from the receptionist. The receptionist would print out the guest list and give it to the ICE agent, along with a "law enforcement acknowledgment form" for the agent to sign, acknowledging receipt of the guest list. The ICE agent would review the guest list and identify individuals of interest to ICE.

This could just mean that it was the management that was pressured and not the receptionists.

I just don't see any other reason why they might willingly endanger their business and customers for absolutely no benefit to themselves, besides governmental pressure.

Please do some more research before you keep throwing out hypothetical complaints about something that didn't happen.

Motel 6 didn't just go along with ICE's request, per the complaint, Motel6 actually trained their employees to turn over such information even before ICE came calling.

The reason? Motel 6 is owned by the Blackstone Group. Most of the directors and executives of the Blackstone Group are die-hard Trump supporters and have espoused hard-line views on immigration. The benefit to themselves was supporting their president's policies.

> The benefit to themselves was supporting their president's policies.

Interesting, well if that was the motive then I certainly can't have any sympathy for Motel 6 here. But I still believe that it is unfair for ICE to go without penalty, whether or not the law addresses this situation.

> per the complaint, Motel6 actually trained their employees to turn over such information even before ICE came calling.

It's not clear to me from the complaint that Motel 6 trained their employees as such prior to any communication from ICE. Your explanation regarding their republican alignment does make sense, but I'm not sure this specific point is accurate.

> Please do some more research before you keep throwing out hypothetical complaints about something that didn't happen.

This is a forum for discussion. It's not Snopes. I just want to share my layperson's opinions and also hear your (and others) expert feedback about them. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments.

> Do we know how ICE asked for these records?

We know that Motel 6 didn't claim their staff were misled into a belief that they were legally compelled, which—even if it wasn't a legal defense, for PR reasons—you'd expect them to do if it was true.

Did you watch the video on the wapo article I linked to, and if so, do you think that officer was asking nicely when he spoke to that driver?

When you share your source maybe I'll be as sure as you are.

Oasisbob shared the civil complaint. It states quite clearly that there was no coercion on ICE's part...moreover that it was Motel 6 that actually directed its employees to just turn over the information.

On a related note...the owner of the Motel 6 chain is a die-hard supporter of President Trump and has very conservative views of immigration, which supports the theory that Motel 6 was in the wrong here and ICE was merely taking advantage of their corporate generosity.

Aha, missed that, thanks.

Which is why when someone claims a law compels you to do something, your default position should be to demand to speak to an attorney, invoke your right to remain silent, and refuse to interact further.

(This means complying if they try to arrest you)

As defense attorneys say: you can't beat the ride, but you can beat the rap.