4 ms·

> While "it is not illegal to own a boot key," the Atlanta Police wrote, the use of a boot key to modify, tamper or disengage a booting device from a vehicle co

> While "it is not illegal to own a boot key," the Atlanta Police wrote, the use of a boot key to modify, tamper or disengage a booting device from a vehicle could result in a variety of charges, such as criminal trespass, theft of services, theft by taking or second-degree property damage. Easy for them to say that (and make initial arrest), but hard to see how any of it sticks if you don't take the boot.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ledauphin 3y ago
it's bizarre that any legal theory could consider criminal charges with this as the justification, without also putting the boot-er in jeopardy for the exact same thing.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Its perhaps bizarre that the law in certain jurisdictions explicitly licenses booting for private parking enforcement, but its not really a bizarre legal theory that a general prohibition doesn’t apply to circumstances explicitly excepted from it.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Easy for them to say that (and make initial arrest), but hard to see how any of it sticks if you don't take the boot. Criminal trespass and property damage don’t require taking anything, and I assume the theft by taking is of the lawfully-seized vehicle, not the boot.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  Is the vehicle seized? In a legal sense? The Atlanta ordinance just says you can boot it, presumably as an inconvenience, but it's like the car becomes yours. http://atlanta.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_ch162_artv_sec162-261 http://atlanta.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_ch162_artv_sec162-261 There may be some context I'm missing, but the Supreme Court seemed kinda down on the inherent right to seize in general. You may apply the boot, only where permitted, so that seems in contrast to general right to seize trasspassers. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/there-is-no-common-law-right-to-boot-a-9175835/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/there-is-no-common-law-rig... The theft of services I could see, but against the car owner, not the unlocker.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I assume the theft by taking is of the lawfully-seized vehicle, not the boot They appear to be removing boots placed by "private parking enforcement companies." Not the police. To the extent there is enabling statute, it's at the level of local government. Parking violations on private property should be a civil dispute. (Or get it towed.) Georgia's chief justice said it best: "It is a crazy thing to sanity y the normal cure for an unauthorized entry on your property is to insist that the trespasser remain on your property."
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
dimmke 3y ago
For people who have never lived in Atlanta, the booting situation is ridiculous there. You can get booted even if you were parked in a spot legitimately - they’re over eager. Police don’t care. Reading this article made me happy.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ledauphin 3y ago

it's bizarre that any legal theory could consider criminal charges with this as the justification, without also putting the boot-er in jeopardy for the exact same thing.

dragonwriter 3y ago
Its perhaps bizarre that the law in certain jurisdictions explicitly licenses booting for private parking enforcement, but its not really a bizarre legal theory that a general prohibition doesn’t apply to circumstances explicitly excepted from it.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Easy for them to say that (and make initial arrest), but hard to see how any of it sticks if you don't take the boot. Criminal trespass and property damage don’t require taking anything, and I assume the theft by taking is of the lawfully-seized vehicle, not the boot.

tedunangst 3y ago
Is the vehicle seized? In a legal sense? The Atlanta ordinance just says you can boot it, presumably as an inconvenience, but it's like the car becomes yours. http://atlanta.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_ch162_artv_sec162-261 http://atlanta.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_ch162_artv_sec162-261 There may be some context I'm missing, but the Supreme Court seemed kinda down on the inherent right to seize in general. You may apply the boot, only where permitted, so that seems in contrast to general right to seize trasspassers. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/there-is-no-common-law-right-to-boot-a-9175835/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/there-is-no-common-law-rig... The theft of services I could see, but against the car owner, not the unlocker.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I assume the theft by taking is of the lawfully-seized vehicle, not the boot They appear to be removing boots placed by "private parking enforcement companies." Not the police. To the extent there is enabling statute, it's at the level of local government. Parking violations on private property should be a civil dispute. (Or get it towed.) Georgia's chief justice said it best: "It is a crazy thing to sanity y the normal cure for an unauthorized entry on your property is to insist that the trespasser remain on your property."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

dimmke 3y ago

For people who have never lived in Atlanta, the booting situation is ridiculous there. You can get booted even if you were parked in a spot legitimately - they’re over eager. Police don’t care. Reading this article made me happy.