3 ms·

That seems like a lot of legal language contortions ("chattels", seriously?) to come up with a ridiculous restriction against simply marking a car-tire with cha

That seems like a lot of legal language contortions ("chattels", seriously?) to come up with a ridiculous restriction against simply marking a car-tire with chalk to tell if it has been moved recently.

rayiner 8y ago
It's actually quite straightforward. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that the 4th amendment protects people from invasions (i.e. trespass) of property rights without a warrant. You have a property right in chattels.[1] (That just means "personal property" as distinguished from "real property." The term is relevant because the rules for what counts as trespass are different between the two.) A car is chattel property. Chalk-marking a car is a trespass to chattels, because it involves intentionally touching the car without permission. Therefore, under Jones, a warrant is required to chalk-mark a car in the course of investigating whether someone has broken the law (i.e. a search). [1] The 4th amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]" "Houses" are real property, while "papers, and effects" are chattel property.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  Marking a car tire with chalk is a practical technique to assess whether or not a car has moved after some interval of time. The idea is to tell if someone has been parking for longer than is acceptable in a particular spot. Not a big deal (I assure you the chalk comes right off!). Not the kind of problem that one would think should involve the 4th Amendment. I guess one's judgement on this depends on whether one thinks laws and the amendments of the constitution are supposed to be taken as absolutely literal and inflexible in their interpretation, with no consideration for practical reality or actual consequences. Sorry, but I think that's unreasonable here.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    It is by itself reasonable to mark tires, since doing so in no way damages the car and is less intrusive than other options law enforcement can constitutionally use (for instance, keeping a photographic record of every second your car was parked, which would not be a trespass, but would be far more intrusive). But it's unconstitutional to do so, because the principle behind our laws say that law enforcement cannot (without a warrant or exigency) trespass on your property to accomplish its goals, whatever they may be. The principle here seems sort of superfluous, but it's holding the line against any sort of trespass, some of which you'd probably find less reasonable, such as magnetically attaching a GPS transmitter to the bottom of your car.
    - crispyambulance 8y ago
      > ...but it's holding the line against any sort of trespass. I just don't believe that practical solutions to real-world human problems is ever to be more strict, more pure, more rigid, more unwavering in the interpretations of rules(law).

rayiner 8y ago

It's actually quite straightforward. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that the 4th amendment protects people from invasions (i.e. trespass) of property rights without a warrant. You have a property right in chattels.[1] (That just means "personal property" as distinguished from "real property." The term is relevant because the rules for what counts as trespass are different between the two.) A car is chattel property. Chalk-marking a car is a trespass to chattels, because it involves intentionally touching the car without permission. Therefore, under Jones, a warrant is required to chalk-mark a car in the course of investigating whether someone has broken the law (i.e. a search). [1] The 4th amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]" "Houses" are real property, while "papers, and effects" are chattel property.

crispyambulance 8y ago
Marking a car tire with chalk is a practical technique to assess whether or not a car has moved after some interval of time. The idea is to tell if someone has been parking for longer than is acceptable in a particular spot. Not a big deal (I assure you the chalk comes right off!). Not the kind of problem that one would think should involve the 4th Amendment. I guess one's judgement on this depends on whether one thinks laws and the amendments of the constitution are supposed to be taken as absolutely literal and inflexible in their interpretation, with no consideration for practical reality or actual consequences. Sorry, but I think that's unreasonable here.
- tptacek 8y ago
  It is by itself reasonable to mark tires, since doing so in no way damages the car and is less intrusive than other options law enforcement can constitutionally use (for instance, keeping a photographic record of every second your car was parked, which would not be a trespass, but would be far more intrusive). But it's unconstitutional to do so, because the principle behind our laws say that law enforcement cannot (without a warrant or exigency) trespass on your property to accomplish its goals, whatever they may be. The principle here seems sort of superfluous, but it's holding the line against any sort of trespass, some of which you'd probably find less reasonable, such as magnetically attaching a GPS transmitter to the bottom of your car.
  - crispyambulance 8y ago
    > ...but it's holding the line against any sort of trespass. I just don't believe that practical solutions to real-world human problems is ever to be more strict, more pure, more rigid, more unwavering in the interpretations of rules(law).