3 ms·

Legally speaking, city could have easily argued that parking space is not a private property and therefore they can easily enforce an agreement to be chalked. I

Legally speaking, city could have easily argued that parking space is not a private property and therefore they can easily enforce an agreement to be chalked. I wouldn't like this but the thing is that 4AM cannot be applied if you willingly relocated your private property in to a place that is not owned by you. This is the principle (I think) behind government able to search in whatever way they deem fit at airport because airport is not your private property. If supreme court upholds this then things would become very messy for the government.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Legally speaking, city could have easily argued that parking space is not a private property and therefore they can easily enforce an agreement to be chalked. They could perhaps enforce such an agreement, if the agreement existed. > I wouldn't like this but the thing is that 4AM cannot be applied if you willingly relocated your private property in to a place that is not owned by you. No, the fourth Amendment doesn't go away on public property, generally. > This is the principle (I think) behind government able to search in whatever way they deem fit at airport because airport is not your private property. It's not. A variety of administrative search criteria together with the “grave and urgent” need to prevent hijackings is, and it's not unlimited. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/482/482.F2d.893.71-2993.html https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/482/482.F2d...
torstenvl 8y ago
"[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) (internal citations omitted) available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Legally speaking, city could have easily argued that parking space is not a private property and therefore they can easily enforce an agreement to be chalked. They could perhaps enforce such an agreement, if the agreement existed. > I wouldn't like this but the thing is that 4AM cannot be applied if you willingly relocated your private property in to a place that is not owned by you. No, the fourth Amendment doesn't go away on public property, generally. > This is the principle (I think) behind government able to search in whatever way they deem fit at airport because airport is not your private property. It's not. A variety of administrative search criteria together with the “grave and urgent” need to prevent hijackings is, and it's not unlimited. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/482/482.F2d.893.71-2993.html https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/482/482.F2d...

torstenvl 8y ago

"[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) (internal citations omitted) available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347.