Court Says Using Chalk On Tires For Parking Enforcement Violates Constitution

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The next time parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark your tires, they might be acting unconstitutionally.

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that "chalking" is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The case was brought by Alison Taylor, a Michigan woman whom the court describes as a "frequent recipient of parking tickets." The city of Saginaw, Mich., like countless other cities around the country, uses chalk to mark the tires of cars to enforce time limits on parking.

By the time Taylor received her 15th citation in just a few years, she decided to go after the city — and specifically after parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins.



https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/7162...rcement-violates-constitution?ft=nprml&f=1001
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
Seems to me there would be implied consent by parking in a municipally-owned parking spot.

If chalking tires is a search, I’d be curious what else would be considered a search.

Good for the the appellant. I hope she wins.
 

Auntie Biache'

Well-Known Member
Yeah, not feeling it. Chalking a tire is neither search, nor is it seizure.
If a teenager walked around chalking tires, they'd call it vandalism. Not defending the loser who doesn't pay her parking tickets, just sayin'. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't get parking tickets.
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
Yeah, not feeling it. Chalking a tire is neither search, nor is it seizure.

Well it is in fact a search. The reason why is very clearly laid out in front of you. If you can’t understand the words in front of you, that’s on you.
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
If a teenager walked around chalking tires, they'd call it vandalism. Not defending the loser who doesn't pay her parking tickets, just sayin'. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't get parking tickets.

Are you trying to suggest that acquiring parking tickets is indicative of moral character?

Sad!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If a teenager walked around chalking tires, they'd call it vandalism.

Different scenario. The parking babe is in charge of enforcing parking laws. Plus, it's just chalk. Not like she's tagging the cars with spray paint.

I'm always interested in these cases, though. How do you find a lawyer who'll take you on, and won't tell you to stop parking illegally, pay your damn tickets, and find something more productive to do with your time? I want to make a frivolous lawsuit and get a fat payday, but I don't know how to find a lawyer pathetic enough to take my case, yet also slick enough to win.
 

Auntie Biache'

Well-Known Member
Different scenario. The parking babe is in charge of enforcing parking laws. Plus, it's just chalk. Not like she's tagging the cars with spray paint.

I'm always interested in these cases, though. How do you find a lawyer who'll take you on, and won't tell you to stop parking illegally, pay your damn tickets, and find something more productive to do with your time? I want to make a frivolous lawsuit and get a fat payday, but I don't know how to find a lawyer pathetic enough to take my case, yet also slick enough to win.

I had my chance with the Mechanical Bull incident, but since I didn't want anything except what was out of pocket, no attorney would take my case. I should have gone for the jugular. I'd been sittin' pretty right now.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The court found that chalking was a search because meter maids must trespass on the car in order to obtain info.
In accordance with Jones, the threshold question is whether chalking constitutes common-law trespass upon a constitutionally protected area. Though Jones does not provide clear boundaries for the meaning of common-law trespass, the Restatement offers some assistance. As defined by the Restatement, common-law trespass is "an act which brings [about] intended physical contact with a chattel in the possession of another." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 217 cmt. e (1965). Moreover, "[a]n actor may . . . commit a trespass by so acting upon a chattel as intentionally to cause it to come in contact with some other object." Id. Adopting this definition, there has been a trespass in this case because the City made intentional physical contact with Taylor's vehicle. As the district court properly found, this physical intrusion, regardless of how slight, constitutes common-law trespass. This is so, even though "no damage [is done] at all." Jones, 565 U.S. at 405 (quoting Entick v. Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817 (C.P. 1765)).
[O]nce we determine the government has trespassed upon a constitutionally protected area, we must then determine whether the trespass was "conjoined with . . . an attempt to find something or to obtain information." Id. at 408 n.5. Here, it was. Neither party disputes that the City uses the chalk marks for the purpose of identifying vehicles that have been parked in the same location for a certain period of time. That information is then used by the City to issue citations. As the district court aptly noted, "[d]espite the low-tech nature of the investigative technique . . . , the chalk marks clearly provided information to Hoskins." This practice amounts to an attempt to obtain information under Jones.

So, once the court confirmed chalking was, in fact, a search, they had to determine if it was unreasonable/unconstitutional. Since no warrantless exceptions apply to his, it's by default unconstitutional.
The automobile exception permits officers to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have "probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime." United States v. Smith, 510 F.3d 641, 647 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). No such probable cause existed here. Thus, the automobile exception is inapplicable.
The City fails to carry its burden of establishing that the community caretaker exception applies in this instance. First, on these facts, the City fails to demonstrate how this search bears a relation to public safety. The City does not show that the location or length of time that Taylor's vehicle was parked created the type of "hazard" or traffic impediment amounting to a public safety concern. Nor does the City demonstrate that delaying a search would result in "injury or ongoing harm to the community." Washington, 573 F.3d at 289. To the contrary, at the time of the search, Taylor's vehicle was lawfully parked in a proper parking location, imposing no safety risk whatsoever. Because the purpose of chalking is to raise revenue, and not to mitigate public hazard, the City was not acting in its "role as [a] community caretake[.]" Id. at 287.
While the City is entitled to maintain efficient, orderly parking, the manner in which it chooses to do so is not without constitutional limitation. As the Supreme Court explains, "the [Fourth] Amendment does not place an unduly oppressive weight on [the government] but merely . . . an orderly procedure. . . ." Jeffers, 342 U.S. at 51 (citation omitted).

The City does not demonstrate, in law or logic, that the need to deter drivers from exceeding the time permitted for parking—before they have even done so—is sufficient to justify a warrantless search under the community caretaker rationale. This is not to say that this exception can never apply to the warrantless search of a lawfully parked vehicle. Nor does our holding suggest that no other exceptions to the warrant requirement might apply in this case. However, on these facts and on the arguments the City proffers, the City fails to meet its burden in establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.
 

Freefaller

Active Member

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Yeah, not feeling it. Chalking a tire is neither search, nor is it seizure.
Definitely a BS ruling. IMO

Now let me ask this. Every parking ticket I ever got (an it wasn't over 2 or 3) was left under my windshield wiper,
If chalking the tire is Unconstitutional wouldn't it be illegal to touch my windshield wiper and put the ticket under it?
 

jazz lady

~*~ Rara Avis ~*~
PREMO Member
Now let me ask this. Every parking ticket I ever got (an it wasn't over 2 or 3) was left under my windshield wiper,
If chalking the tire is Unconstitutional wouldn't it be illegal to touch my windshield wiper and put the ticket under it?
That was exactly my thought, but the second paragraph in Chris0nllyn's post (#11) offers the distinction:

[O]nce we determine the government has trespassed upon a constitutionally protected area, we must then determine whether the trespass was "conjoined with . . . an attempt to find something or to obtain information." Id. at 408 n.5. Here, it was. Neither party disputes that the City uses the chalk marks for the purpose of identifying vehicles that have been parked in the same location for a certain period of time. That information is then used by the City to issue citations.

Placing the ticket is not attempting to "find something or obtain information." The chalk marks are.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
Are you trying to suggest that acquiring parking tickets is indicative of moral character?

Sad!

This is the exact same type of word origami Sadpussi used to play...

What's truly sad is you being too stupid and too criminally indulgent to be walking the streets...and yet, here you are...
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
This is the exact same type of word origami Sadpussi used to play...

What's truly sad is you being too stupid and too criminally indulgent to be walking the streets...and yet, here you are...

As usual, you make absolutely zero sense. Sad!
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
That was exactly my thought, but the second paragraph in Chris0nllyn's post (#11) offers the distinction:



Placing the ticket is not attempting to "find something or obtain information." The chalk marks are.
They can get all of the information they need from the tag number.
But does that give them the right to touch my personal property.
 
Top