Document Type
Note
Abstract
Cities’ attempts to regulate the sharing economy reveal a conflict between local governance interests and Fourth Amendment doctrine. Although sharing economy industries present local problems, from housing affordability and land-use regulations to traffic congestion and sidewalk safety, cities attempt to effectuate their policies through data reporting requirements that are vulnerable to Fourth Amendment challenge. Businesses have successfully argued that cities’ reporting requirements are unconstitutional searches because they have an unreasonably broad scope and lack an opportunity for pre-compliance review. This Article argues that this impasse results from recent developments that have lent additional confusion to the Fourth Amendment’s administrative search doctrine. First, courts have increasingly focused on the scale of information demanded, rather than the relevance of that information to the government’s purpose. Second, they have emphasized pre-compliance review without explaining what an opportunity for such review looks like for recurrent, discretion-less reports. Finally, they have narrowed the “closely regulated industry” exception by focusing on the perceived dangerousness of a regulated industry, rather than the pervasiveness of government regulation within that industry. The Article proposes solutions to contend with these changes and to clarify how cities can regulate the sharing economy without running afoul of Fourth Amendment interests.
Recommended Citation
Matthew J. Disler,
Note: Home-Sharing, Ride-Sharing, And Data-Sharing: Fourth Amendment Hurdles For Local Governance of the Sharing Economy,
2
Notre Dame J. on Emerging Tech.
313
(2021).