Ugh. I know this is simply how courts work, but of course this triviality* is all the talk around the internet today while actual heinous 4th amendment violations will continue apace. Or are we just supposed to be happy the courts decided that the 4th amendment still exists after all?
*if one considers the standard of “least intrusive way to enforce a legitimate public interest” or whatever it is, it’s hard to imagine anything less intrusive.
You, uh, can spend an entire day detailing your car?
Is that the only replacement option you can think of?
There are different arguments in play here. Yes, it’s wrong for the PD to deface private property (even with something as benign as chalk), but you are also on a public road, taking up public space others also need to use. Interestingly, some jurisdictions claim removing the chalk is “interfering with an investigation” and is a felony.
There is a balance here, reasonable use of public space vs. reasonable intrusion by public officials. I think when cops go overboard in trying to increase revenue from traffic infractions (for example: deliberately creating a stretch of road where the speed limit drops for no valid reason, that just happen to have an area where cops can lurk) they are moving from protecting and serving the public to serving themselves.
Taking a time-stamped picture of the car is an alternative that may prove even more valuable but leads to privacy concerns, as if someone contests that the car was parked there for so long comparing multiple pictures would reveal whether it’s been moved.
To counteract “I got in the car and drove around, then came back” place the camera in a known, fixed location (resting against the pole of a street sign, perhaps) and compare the position of the car relative to fixed background objects. The position of the car relative to those objects will be different if you moved around unless you’re very, very good at parking in exactly the same location both times.
Alternately, how does this ruling affect police leaving a timestamped piece of paper (not a ticket, not at first) under the windshield wipers and using the presence of that paper (and the timestamp on it) as a guide for how long the car has been in the same spot? Or would that count as an unconstitutional search as well? You’re not physically marking the vehicle, you’re placing a separate item on it.
This is not always the case. Lots of times it’s not a single spot, but the entire zone that cannot be parked in for an extended period. This is typical in residential neighborhoods for instance.
Surely tire chalking is protected by the First Amendment?
The treads of your tires??
Did you really expect them to stay clean once you moved your car?
No one is going to point out that the first part of the headline is sorta back-asswards?
Tire(n) chalking(v) by (parking enforcement)(n) is unconstitutional(adj)…
Seems like proper order to me.
Probably.
But here’s two ideas of the top of my head that could be used without violating anyone’s privacy:
Seems simple to me.
Ummm… where do you live that has the police deciding speed limits? Or creating roads?
That’s my take. This sort of ruling strengthens the 4th, so that when they start attaching viruses to your car computer to facilitate parking enforcement, we can say “hey, that’s worse than chalk!”
It seemed strange to me too so I read more. It looks like based on United States v. Jones - Wikipedia they decided that it was trespassing to attach something to one’s personal property in order to gain information (search/surveillance), which was unreasonable without probable cause and without a warrant.
Seems kind of pointless given the other methods of surveillance available, but still kind of interesting example of how the legal system reasons about things.
The author Brian O’Nolan used to write a “science” column for the Irish Times under the name Myles na gCopaleen; in one column he posited an additive to tarmac which was a kind of slow glue, so if you parked too long in one spot your car would simply adhere.
Here in Houston, we call that summer.
Read the tweets. It has a lot to do with the common law definition of “trespass”.
@stinkinbadgers: Maybe we should be pleased that the 6th Circuit decided 4A still exists. This Circuit includes Michigan (where the case originated), which DHS and CBP believe 4A rights don’t exist because of their bogus 100-mile ‘boarder’ zone.
I guess I phrased that awkwardly, but I do know of stretches of road where the speed limit drops suddenly for no apparent reason, and the cops use that as a speed trap. There is a legendary spot in Florida near Gainesville like that. It appears like these were set up specifically to make money off out-of-towners. If you are ever in Massachusetts and see a sign reading “Thickly Settled” then slow down, that typically means the speed limit drops (often just around a curve) and they use it for speed traps. Are those areas any more “thickly settled” than elsewhere in the area? As far as I can tell, no.
I guess I think that common law idea of trespass is nonsense (or that it is being applied in a foolish way). I mean, assault laws may cover any physical contact or threat of physical contact, but we don’t charge for assault when we bump into someone on the bus. At some point someone has to actually think about what they are doing.
The court opinion lays the reasoning out in detail. It’s pretty readable, even leads with a pun.
