Comments on: “Chalking tires constitutes unreasonable search, 6th Circuit rules”

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:36:04 +0000

In reply to Walter Olson. IMHO, the clarification makes the court look extremely silly. What factual record really needs to be developed here? A chalk mark on a tire is a chalk mark on a tire. I get that this is at the pleadings stage, but seriously?

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 01:36:39 +0000

In reply to Richard. Interesting but I don't think an ordinance can constitute notice and consent that gets you around the 4th Amendment issues that some see here.

By: David C

David C — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 13:52:12 +0000

In reply to Richard.

“Ordinance that parking in a timed space constitutes consent to chalking”

I very much dislike that sort of law. Where does that lead? An ordinance that parking constitutes consent to search your car? An ordinance that walking on the sidewalk constitutes consent to search your phone? You shouldn’t have to give up rights to use basic public services like roads.

“if chalking is a trespass, isn’t putting a ticket on the windshield?”

Yes, but at the point you’re putting on a ticket, you at least have probable cause that they’ve violated the law in some way. When you put chalk on, you’re doing it to someone who is legally parked, and you have no particular reason to assume they’ll violate the law.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 12:28:59 +0000

Note important update incorporated into text above: the court has issued an amended opinion clarifying the limited scope of its holding. In particular, while it finds that the city has at this early stage of the litigation failed to establish the applicability to its chalking practice of either the “community caretaking” exception or the motor-vehicle exception to the warrant requirement, it remains free to develop its case for those exceptions (or others) as the litigation proceeds.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:59:55 +0000

Possible easy fix? Ordinance that parking in a timed space constitutes consent to chalking, with sufficient postings in the parking areas informing of same.

Also, if chalking is a trespass, isn’t putting a ticket on the windshield?

By: SPO

SPO — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:17:00 +0000

In reply to Steve. De minimis non curat lex is often translated as the law does not deal in trifles. The point is that chalk on a tire is such a small thing that, legally speaking, it shouldn't move the needle. Cf. The Rape of the Lock, Alexander Pope.

By: Nobody Special

Nobody Special — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:35:57 +0000

Shouldn’t a civil libertarian prefer a temporary chalk mark on a tire to a permanent electronic record, such as those generated by a GPS tracker, digital photograph, or parking meter app history?

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 07:50:08 +0000

I don’t want anyone writing on my car with chalk or any other substance.

By: mx

mx — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 05:15:18 +0000

In reply to Allan. Perhaps, but it also demonstrates how the Fourth Amendment is anachronistic. Which is a greater privacy violation: chalking tires or creating a large government database fed by automatic license plate readers, potentially retained indefinitely, of everyone's license plates and location, which can be used to see if a car has been parked for too long? Certainly the latter; that information can amount to a record of people's movements all throughout the city. Which one is illegal? The former.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 03:08:33 +0000

In reply to SPO. SPO, I'm confused what "trifles" have to do with anything. They're generally small penalties, but parking fines are monetary penalties imposed by governments. What's less trifling for the law to care about than penalization by government?