2 ms·
This ruling is bad for 2 reasons. 1. It's an example of unintended consequence. It changes no circumstance (same cop will just be running around snapping pict
by reallydude 7y ago
This ruling is bad for 2 reasons.
1. It's an example of unintended consequence.
It changes no circumstance (same cop will just be running around snapping pictures), it makes it more costly for the inefficient government. GJ there.
2. You enter into an implicit contract when you voluntarily subject yourself to the statute of the limited parking (the code is on the signage). It's not unreasonable to be tracked for the purposes of enforcement, anymore than providing an ID for a vehicle license.
This appears to be a strawman precedent (bad lawyering) that a higher court will casually reverse (that would be the supreme court).
Next up, breathing on a citizen or observing clothing by a law enforcement officer can be construed as unreasonable via the 4th?