5 ms·

An old parking enforcement technique is to put a chalk mark on a car's tire: if you come back after two hours and see the same car with the marked tire you know

An old parking enforcement technique is to put a chalk mark on a car's tire: if you come back after two hours and see the same car with the marked tire you know that it has parked too long and can be ticketed. The 6th circuit recently ruled that is an unconstitutional search[1]: a government agent is physically intruding on a private area (your car) and searching it for information (how long it's been there). Neat stuff. [1]http://www.patc.com/articles/2019_taylor_v_saginaw_chapman.pdf http://www.patc.com/articles/2019_taylor_v_saginaw_chapman.p...

bennylope 7y ago
The court later issued a clarification basically upholding the logic of their ruling but stating that because the chalking was part of valid [regulatory] activities (below) the chalking is okay[0]. > Rather, we hold, based on the pleading stage of this litigation, that two exceptions to the warrant requirement—the “community caretaking” exception and the motor-vehicle exception—do not apply here. Our holding extends no further than this. From the court's order[1]: > Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE. [0] https://www.sixthcircuitappellateblog.com/recent-cases/sixth-circuit-amends-chalking-decision-to-clarify-scope/ https://www.sixthcircuitappellateblog.com/recent-cases/sixth... [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/17-2126/17-2126-2019-04-25.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/17...
- SilasX 7y ago
  So, am I understanding that right, that they're upholding the chalking-tires technique, but saying it holds up for reasons other than the vehicle and caretaking exceptions? Also: >>Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise It should not be legal for judges to make puns like that. (Edited to add substantive remark that belonged here as well.)
  - gowld 7y ago
    It was a very technical decision that clarified the parameters of the debate and sent it back to be re-judged. They didn't uphold/knockdown anything. They did say that chalking a tire is a "search" (using bad logic, IMO), but did not rule that it was "unreasonable".
- owenmarshall 7y ago
  I don't think that's the right reading. At least, that's not how I read it. > Alison Taylor, a frequent recipient of parking tickets, sued the City and its parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins, alleging that chalking violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. The City moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted the City’s motion, finding that, while chalking may have constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was reasonable. Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE The sixth circuit has reversed the district court's dismissal that the search was reasonable. Both the sixth circuit and the lower court agree that marking the tire is a search; the lower court dismissed and held that the search was reasonable. The amended decision says that once the case advances the city can argue that their actions fall under 4th amendment exceptions, but that their current motion did not sufficiently make that argument. The chalking may be found OK during further proceedings, depending on how the city argued, but at the time that decision was issued it was not.
  - bennylope 7y ago
    Yeah, I think I've mixed something up. I was [lightly] researching this a few weeks back and am pretty sure I found that the net effect of the final ruling was that for the purpose of enforcing regulations [any] city could mark tires, and that because it the outside of the vehicle on public property it was not trespass...
SilasX 7y ago
That puts them in a weird, paradoxical position: 1) Illegal: Placing a mark on your tires that will quickly fade with time and invades your car just enough to reveal whether you adhered to the limits. 2) Legal: Monitor the area with video surveillance and take pictures of every license plate that ever parked there, with timestamps and a photo of the occupants, and store that information for eternity, to be shared with any LEO who wants it. (2) feels a lot more invasive than (1), but courts consider (2) okay because it just uses stuff visible to the public, while (1) actually physically modifies your car. Edit: See also the conflict with the long-standing, uncontested practice of leaving a fingerprint on a car's tail light at the beginning of a stop before observing any wrongdoing that warrants such a "search": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19730452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19730452
- mtgx 7y ago
  I feel like because all of this is so new, we haven't had time to fully think about this stuff, and law enforcement is abusing this. But if we take things one by one, we could see that some real restrictions could be put on the use of this technology, even in the context of existing laws. For instance, "video surveillance is allowed because everything it sees is public." But then you can go like "Okay, but..." 1) A regular person wouldn't remember everything it saw in public a year from now, a month from now, or even a day from now. 2) A regular person wouldn't try to build all sorts of automatic connections between various identities it sees in public over longer periods of time (say more than a few hours) 3) A regular person wouldn't be able to take punitive action with the might of the government and taking up weapons against crimes it sees happen in public (so perhaps someone like a government entity needs to be more restricted than regular people when doing certain monitoring activities, because of their inherit potential for abuse?) Suddenly when you consider all three of these ideas, and there are probably more like them, we can realize that public surveillance doesn't have to be the "free for all" governments would like us to believe that it should be (because the more true that becomes, the more power they have against each individual, way before there's even a hint of a case against someone).
- kempbellt 7y ago
  Strange how a chalk mark is illegal, but placing a ticket under the windshield wiper, or sticking a "vehicle to be towed" sticker on the window isn't. To add: I'd personally much rather local LEOs use the chalk method than the camera method.
snagglegaggle 7y ago
For a while I have struggled with how vehicles in the US are treated. A national ID system and the requirement to ID onesself is opposed for many likely valid reasons but a national ID system for cars and the requirement to ID yourself is in some way materially different? As I just recently commented elsewhere: There is a right to travel and a right to engage in interstate commerce. Sure, you can argue there is no right to drive a car, but only inasmuch as there is no right to operate a printing press and distribute leaflets.
- gowld 7y ago
  There is no right to operate a printing press on the public roadways.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    Mixing the metaphor broke it. Starting again: I have a right to travel. Some travel involves vehicles, which are currently licensed. This is analogous to requiring permits and searches for specific kinds of speech.
    - braindeath 7y ago
      You don't have a constitutional right to operate a vehicle in the US.
      - snagglegaggle 7y ago
        That's debateable, did you read my comment? If you take exception to a specific point speak to it.
        owenmarshall 7y ago
        It is debatable, has been debated by the courts and settled: you have a right to freely travel, but there is no right to use any particular mode of transportation without government regulation. This is why sovcits who are “traveling in commerce” without license and insurance always lose their “legal” arguments. Because the issue is settled - there is no constitutional right to drive a car.

bennylope 7y ago

The court later issued a clarification basically upholding the logic of their ruling but stating that because the chalking was part of valid [regulatory] activities (below) the chalking is okay[0]. > Rather, we hold, based on the pleading stage of this litigation, that two exceptions to the warrant requirement—the “community caretaking” exception and the motor-vehicle exception—do not apply here. Our holding extends no further than this. From the court's order[1]: > Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE. [0] https://www.sixthcircuitappellateblog.com/recent-cases/sixth-circuit-amends-chalking-decision-to-clarify-scope/ https://www.sixthcircuitappellateblog.com/recent-cases/sixth... [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/17-2126/17-2126-2019-04-25.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/17...

SilasX 7y ago
So, am I understanding that right, that they're upholding the chalking-tires technique, but saying it holds up for reasons other than the vehicle and caretaking exceptions? Also: >>Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise It should not be legal for judges to make puns like that. (Edited to add substantive remark that belonged here as well.)
- gowld 7y ago
  It was a very technical decision that clarified the parameters of the debate and sent it back to be re-judged. They didn't uphold/knockdown anything. They did say that chalking a tire is a "search" (using bad logic, IMO), but did not rule that it was "unreasonable".
owenmarshall 7y ago
I don't think that's the right reading. At least, that's not how I read it. > Alison Taylor, a frequent recipient of parking tickets, sued the City and its parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins, alleging that chalking violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. The City moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted the City’s motion, finding that, while chalking may have constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was reasonable. Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE The sixth circuit has reversed the district court's dismissal that the search was reasonable. Both the sixth circuit and the lower court agree that marking the tire is a search; the lower court dismissed and held that the search was reasonable. The amended decision says that once the case advances the city can argue that their actions fall under 4th amendment exceptions, but that their current motion did not sufficiently make that argument. The chalking may be found OK during further proceedings, depending on how the city argued, but at the time that decision was issued it was not.
- bennylope 7y ago
  Yeah, I think I've mixed something up. I was [lightly] researching this a few weeks back and am pretty sure I found that the net effect of the final ruling was that for the purpose of enforcing regulations [any] city could mark tires, and that because it the outside of the vehicle on public property it was not trespass...

SilasX 7y ago

That puts them in a weird, paradoxical position: 1) Illegal: Placing a mark on your tires that will quickly fade with time and invades your car just enough to reveal whether you adhered to the limits. 2) Legal: Monitor the area with video surveillance and take pictures of every license plate that ever parked there, with timestamps and a photo of the occupants, and store that information for eternity, to be shared with any LEO who wants it. (2) feels a lot more invasive than (1), but courts consider (2) okay because it just uses stuff visible to the public, while (1) actually physically modifies your car. Edit: See also the conflict with the long-standing, uncontested practice of leaving a fingerprint on a car's tail light at the beginning of a stop before observing any wrongdoing that warrants such a "search": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19730452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19730452

mtgx 7y ago
I feel like because all of this is so new, we haven't had time to fully think about this stuff, and law enforcement is abusing this. But if we take things one by one, we could see that some real restrictions could be put on the use of this technology, even in the context of existing laws. For instance, "video surveillance is allowed because everything it sees is public." But then you can go like "Okay, but..." 1) A regular person wouldn't remember everything it saw in public a year from now, a month from now, or even a day from now. 2) A regular person wouldn't try to build all sorts of automatic connections between various identities it sees in public over longer periods of time (say more than a few hours) 3) A regular person wouldn't be able to take punitive action with the might of the government and taking up weapons against crimes it sees happen in public (so perhaps someone like a government entity needs to be more restricted than regular people when doing certain monitoring activities, because of their inherit potential for abuse?) Suddenly when you consider all three of these ideas, and there are probably more like them, we can realize that public surveillance doesn't have to be the "free for all" governments would like us to believe that it should be (because the more true that becomes, the more power they have against each individual, way before there's even a hint of a case against someone).
kempbellt 7y ago
Strange how a chalk mark is illegal, but placing a ticket under the windshield wiper, or sticking a "vehicle to be towed" sticker on the window isn't. To add: I'd personally much rather local LEOs use the chalk method than the camera method.

snagglegaggle 7y ago

For a while I have struggled with how vehicles in the US are treated. A national ID system and the requirement to ID onesself is opposed for many likely valid reasons but a national ID system for cars and the requirement to ID yourself is in some way materially different? As I just recently commented elsewhere: There is a right to travel and a right to engage in interstate commerce. Sure, you can argue there is no right to drive a car, but only inasmuch as there is no right to operate a printing press and distribute leaflets.

gowld 7y ago
There is no right to operate a printing press on the public roadways.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  Mixing the metaphor broke it. Starting again: I have a right to travel. Some travel involves vehicles, which are currently licensed. This is analogous to requiring permits and searches for specific kinds of speech.
  - braindeath 7y ago
    You don't have a constitutional right to operate a vehicle in the US.
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      That's debateable, did you read my comment? If you take exception to a specific point speak to it.
      - owenmarshall 7y ago
        It is debatable, has been debated by the courts and settled: you have a right to freely travel, but there is no right to use any particular mode of transportation without government regulation. This is why sovcits who are “traveling in commerce” without license and insurance always lose their “legal” arguments. Because the issue is settled - there is no constitutional right to drive a car.