3 ms·
Don't be so sure: > And that search wasn't reasonable, the court said. The city searches vehicles "that are parked legally, without probable cause, or even so
by cabaalis 7y ago
Don't be so sure:
> And that search wasn't reasonable, the court said. The city searches vehicles "that are parked legally, without probable cause, or even so much as 'individualized suspicion of wrongdoing' — the touchstone of the reasonableness standard," the court wrote.
This is linchpin of the ruling. If a parked car is not suspected of wrongdoing, it could conceivably be argued that photographing it to establish wrongdoing is exactly the same as chalking it. IANAL
- nsxwolf 7y agoThen would police even be allowed to look at the car with their own eyes, and remember?
- chungleong 7y agoThat's the heart of the matter, isn't it? How can chalking be a search when the fact that the car is parked there is in plain sight? If we regard "search" as a synonym of "google", then yes, we can say that the act of chalking allowed the police to acquire knowledge it didn't have before. I don't think the framers meant that though when they wrote the 4th Amendment. A search needs to involve something that's concealed.