Appeals Court: Chalking Tires For Parking Enforcement Violates The Fourth Amendment

from the extra-4th-with-bonus-pun-topping dept

A rather surprising conclusion has been reached by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: a common parking enforcement tool of the trade may be unconstitutional.

Not everyone who's been ticketed multiple times for parking violations has made a federal case of it. Alison Taylor did, though, arguing that Saginaw, Michigan's practice of "chalking" tires was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Taylor had been ticketed fifteen times when she decided to sue. The court sides with her, finding that marking tires to determine whether a vehicle has been parked too long constitutes not just a search, but an unreasonable one, under the Fourth Amendment.

The Appeals Court opinion [PDF] leads off with an almost unforgivable pun:

Parking enforcement officers return to the car after the posted time for parking has passed, and if the chalk marks are still there—a sign that the vehicle has not moved—the officer issues a citation. 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 route the court takes to reach this conclusion is circuitous and somewhat amusing, especially if one imagines Saginaw city reps watching with increasing dismay as their "easy win" assumptions are dismantled paragraph by paragraph.

The Appeals Court references the Supreme Court's Jones decision to arrive at its determination that chalking tires = search. In that decision, the Supreme Court punted on the issue of tracking devices as searches, opting instead to find the warrantless placement of the device on someone's car as an intrusion in and of itself, a "trespass" onto someone's private property -- in this case, a car.

In recent years, however, the Supreme Court revisited the seldom used “property-based” approach to the Fourth Amendment search inquiry in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). Under Jones, when governmental invasions are accompanied by physical intrusions, a search occurs when the government: (1) trespasses upon a constitutionally protected area, (2) to obtain information. Id. at 404–405.

The car may be parked on a public street when chalking occurs, but the placement of chalk on the private property of a citizen is a "trespass" with the intent of gathering information (how long the car has been parked in a certain spot).

[O]nce we determine the government has trespassed upon a constitutionally protected area, we must then determine whether the trespass was “conjoined with . . . an attempt to find something or to obtain information.” Id. at 408 n.5. Here, it was. Neither party disputes that the City uses the chalk marks for the purpose of identifying vehicles that have been parked in the same location for a certain period of time. That information is then used by the City to issue citations. As the district court aptly noted, “[d]espite the low-tech nature of the investigative technique . . . , the chalk marks clearly provided information to Hoskins.” This practice amounts to an attempt to obtain information under Jones.

That's not the end of the analysis. Warrantless searches are permitted if the search is reasonable. The city claimed the chalking/search was reasonable because of a reduced expectation of privacy when parked on a public street. Alternatively, it argued the search was reasonable under the community caretaking exception.

The reduced expectation of privacy exception argument fails because a car legally parked on a public street -- absent any other indicators of criminal activity -- cannot generate the probable cause needed to justify a warrantless chalking. At the point the tire is marked, no law has been broken, nor is there any justifiable suspicion the driver intends to violate the law by parking for longer than is allowed.

As for the community caretaking function, the Appeals Court finds this argument just as weak. The caretaking function is not supposed to be investigatory or carried out with the intent of collecting evidence. Marking a tire gives the government information it can use later to issue parking tickets. This does nothing to make the community safer.

The City fails to carry its burden of establishing that the community caretaker exception applies in this instance. First, on these facts, the City fails to demonstrate how this search bears a relation to public safety. The City does not show that the location or length of time that Taylor’s vehicle was parked created the type of “hazard” or traffic impediment amounting to a public safety concern. Nor does the City demonstrate that delaying a search would result in “injury or ongoing harm to the community.” Washington, 573 F.3d at 289. To the contrary, at the time of the search, Taylor’s vehicle was lawfully parked in a proper parking location, imposing no safety risk whatsoever. Because the purpose of chalking is to raise revenue, and not to mitigate public hazard, the City was not acting in its “role as [a] community caretaker[.]”

The finding is narrow, but it's enough to steer the city of Saginaw to other methods of parking enforcement -- which unfortunately could see an increase in the use of automated license plate readers or surveillance cameras to accomplish the same ends.

The City does not demonstrate, in law or logic, that the need to deter drivers from exceeding the time permitted for parking—before they have even done so—is sufficient to justify a warrantless search under the community caretaker rationale. This is not to say that this exception can never apply to the warrantless search of a lawfully parked vehicle. Nor does our holding suggest that no other exceptions to the warrant requirement might apply in this case. However, on these facts and on the arguments the City proffers, the City fails to meet its burden in establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.

This doesn't mean the government won't ultimately secure a win for tire chalking. What it does mean is the case heads back down a level for more exploration of the issue. This is a ruling on an appealed motion to dismiss by the city. All this means for Alison Taylor is her case isn't dead yet. But if this holds up, a lot of cities using similar enforcement methods are going to have to try a different approach. Unfortunately for those in the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction, this may mean more reliance on ALPRs and other tech that has its own unanswered privacy-related questions.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, 6th circuit, chalking tires, parking, parking enforcement


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Jordan Chandler, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:02pm

    entitlement

    Of course a woman can't be bothered to actually learn to move her car, no, everything is someone else's fault.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Andrew (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:08pm

    Damager

    Interesting that I haven't seen anyone talk about damaging someone's private property. Some wheels and tires can be thousands of dollars and while chalk will wash off it is still an abrasive item. I'm sure someone, somewhere has sued a city for scratching their $2k rims.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:23pm

      Re: Damager

      It is vandalism.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:37pm

      Re: Damager

      Yep. I had this done to me once right after I’d paid a significant sum to have my car detailed, including the black and shiny tire treatment, then this parking goon comes along and puts a big ol’ chalk mark down the side of my front tire. Yay for the 6th Circuit.

      In this hi-tech age, there’s no need to physically touch the vehicle. It would be simple enough to use smartphone cameras to accomplish the same goal, also without the need to use ALPRs.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:11pm

    Bad to Worse

    And now instead of chalk, they will take a picture of the license plate and record it. So much less invasive, eh?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:20pm

      Seriously

      A "warrentless chalking"?!?!?
      This ruling is just asinine.
      The car owner is entering into a transaction by using a scarce public good - street space - in exchange for a bit of chalk on their tires. There's no criminality implied or expected!

      By this logic, one might argue that issuing tickets to ride the bus is a "warrantless search."
      After all, why does simply riding a bus constitute probable cause?

      And how is automated license plate reading not a "search" by this definition?

      Unbelievable that's it has even come to litigation, but seems like a relatively simple terms of service on the parking meter would nip this in the bud. Just insane that it's even required though

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Valkor, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:30pm

        Re: Seriously

        "Terms of Service" on a meter is a terrible idea. Fortunately, this isn't about metered time limits, it's about posted time limits.

        I like thinking of the parking as a scarce public good. Tire chalk is more like the city checking you into your spot in a cost-effective manner.

        Seriously, this is why people hate lawyers. "Unreasonable"? Not to normal people. "Search"? Are you serious? This is why we can't have nice things.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 1:24pm

          Re: Re: Seriously

          Tire chalk is more like the city checking you into your spot in a cost-effective manner.

          A time-stamped photo would be a more reliable check-in mechanism. If there's nothing preventing some stranger from putting chalk on your tires, what's to prevent me from walking around chalking tires as well?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 2:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Seriously

            In fact, what would they do if I pre-chalked my tires... multiple times? Do they have some proof that it's THEIR chalk mark that hasn't moved?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:39pm

        Re: Seriously

        And how is automated license plate reading not a "search" by this definition?

        Did you bother to read the article or the opinion? Because that would have answered your question.

        Chalking physically trespasses onto private property. Visually reading a license plate does not.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JoeCool (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 5:50pm

        Re: Seriously

        The car owner is entering into a transaction by using a scarce public good - street space - in exchange for a bit of chalk on their tires. There's no criminality implied or expected!

        It's vandalism, pure and simple. Sure, it's just "a bit of chalk on the tire", but it's basically the same as scratching marks in the fender above a tire.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 6:49pm

          Re: Re: Seriously

          DMV in NY put an 8" x 5" sticker on my window that said This vehicle is illegally parked on government property and that sticker baked in the sun and it took me more than an hour scraping, rubbing and soaking the glue with gasoline. Government is purposely nasty to citizens.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:31pm

      Re: Bad to Worse

      Ah, but a license plate picture alone can't prove that you didn't get in your car before the time limit expired, drive it around the block, and then park it in the same place again. They'd have to take two photos of the car in some way that proves the car hasn't moved.

      Cross-article reference - maybe I should go patent "a method for photographically confirming automobile movement over a discrete time interval"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:42pm

        Re: Re: Bad to Worse

        They'd have to take two photos of the car in some way that proves the car hasn't moved.

        I've never understood how the chalk proves that the car hasn't moved, either. If I drive around the block with a chalk mark on the side of my tire, it'll still be there when I arrive back in the parking spot, so how does the meter maid know I didn't move the car just because there's chalk on my tire?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: Bad to Worse

          I would guess that the parking enforcement officer always chalks the tires in the same place. Then, if the chalk mark is in a different place when they return, they know the car has moved.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: Bad to Worse

          Wouldn't they put the mark on the tread, so it wears off if moved? It looks like that in this article's picture.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 1:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad to Worse

            If that's what they're supposed to be doing, then my city is doing it wrong.

            This seems like a great way to utilize all the vagrants that have invaded the city of late. Just find the closest vagrant and pay him a few bucks to keep your tires chalk-free and you have all-day parking...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 1:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Bad to Worse

          They usually either (1) chalk the tire in the same basic spot -- which would unlikely to be where it was when you returned or (2) I've seen them chalk the tire and the ground in the same spot, so unless you align the chalk marks, moving the car will still get you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Doctor Duck, 25 Apr 2019 @ 8:45pm

            Re: Bad to Worse

            I don't see the logic here. If non-aligned marks are an indication that the car has moved, isn't that a good thing?

            Surely you wouldn't want to get the car back into the same position, since then it would look like it hadn't moved and was therefore subject to a fine.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          spamvictim (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 8:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Bad to Worse

          The chalk mark runs down the side of the tire onto the pavement. It would take some pretty fancy driving to move the car and put it back with the tire and pavement mark still aligned.
          To whoever said that the chalk can damage the tire, get real. Chalk is very soft; if it can damage your tire, I hope you never have to drive through a mud puddle.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 10:36am

            Bad to Worse

            "The chalk mark runs down the side of the tire onto the pavement. It would take some pretty fancy driving to move the car and put it back with the tire and pavement mark still aligned."

            Actually, the outcome would be random. Sometimes the marks would align, sometimes they wouldn't. There'd be some fraction of a percentage of false positives, depending on how close in distance qualifies as being "aligned".

            Is the next step for motorists to carry cameras, shoot pictures of their own tyres when returning to the motorcar, then use those photos as "evidence" that the mark is not aligned, it's a millimetre off?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Doctor Duck, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:50pm

        Re: Bad to Worse

        Driving away and returning doesn't usually help. Most ordinances specify that you can't park in the same zone for more than the specified time. They don't say anything about being in exactly the same space.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:27pm

    Parking citations and towing is big business and we cannot have the whiny complaints of the little people interfering with big business now can we? I suggest that the tires of the rich and influential be chalked and see what they think about it - and yes I know they have private parking, that makes it even better.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:30pm

    It's either a stretch or a joke

    The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals missed April 1st by 21 days, or maybe they have a calendar that they read differently. So maybe it's just stretch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 12:39pm

      Re: It's either a stretch or a joke

      I think it far more likely that the Judge(s) involved have been the victims of over-zealous parking citations themselves.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jessie (profile), 25 Apr 2019 @ 1:12pm

    Chalking

    I've only ever seen chalking where the officer places a chalk line on the road right behind the tire, rather than on the tire. It accomplishes the same thing, why not just do it that way?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 25 Apr 2019 @ 2:43pm

    This is ridiculous.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 25 Apr 2019 @ 5:53pm

    I wonder what the city would argue if someone washed off the chalk marks? Interfering with a police investigation? Destroying evidence?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2019 @ 9:28pm

    The case definitely seems pretty facetious on the surface, but I can understand where the court is coming from with it. It's one of those "can't give an inch because they'll take a mile" situations. Even if the actual situation is, essentially, completely harmless, it breaks the same rules as the more serious situations.

    Most of the legal concepts and precedents are pretty clearly stated across many other cases, and are easy to see on their own and how they compare to this situation.

    • Even in a public place, your car is your private property. If someone comes along and sits on your bumper, they've got no right to stay there, because the car is not part of the public space. Nobody has the right to come along and spray-paint graffiti onto your car, even with water-soluble paint, nor do they have the right to attach a bumper sticker to it.

    • Touching something to gain information about it, even without entering or modifying it, still counts as a search. Just ask the TSA next time they pat you down at the airport.

    • As with all constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment is not absolute. When two rights come into conflict, the one that results in less total harm wins out over the other. Often referenced by the phrase, "your right to wave your fists around ends where my face begins". This is why metal detectors at government buildings are legal. Your right to not be blown up in a courtroom bombing outweighs someone else's right to not walk through a metal detector.

    • But this isn't a free pass to violate one right in favor of another: it has to be the least invasive option that is reasonably available. A metal detector will stop a bomb threat at least as effectively as a strip search will; it is far less invasive, and less time consuming; it is more narrowly crafted to the pressing interest of preventing people from getting blown up; and installing a metal detector is not an unreasonable burden compared to hiring strippers. (Wait... that's not what they're called...)

    • Together, those two make up the "pressing state interest" defense. If the government is doing the least invasive option it has available to fulfill its duty of safeguarding citizens and their constitutional rights, then your right not to be searched (or to speak your mind, or to carry a gun) has to take a backseat. But if there is a less invasive option available, or their actions do not further a pressing interest, your rights have been violated without due cause.

    • Towing a car that has been sitting for too long is a pressing state interest: the public right of way mustn't be blocked. But marking a car does not directly further that state interest; marking a car does not clear the right of way. It provides information about that car to a government official in the future, who may then use that information to decide to tow the car and clear up the right of way.

    • There are less invasive ways to obtain that same information. To say that cheap digital cameras (especially such as in a cellphone) already see widespread use, is a massive understatement. You don't even have to use any fancy software; take a picture of the car parked at X, then check the last photo or two of X next time you come around. This does not touch the vehicle nor bypass any privacy measures, and therefore is not trespassing on their property to perform a search of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      BernardoVerda (profile), 26 Apr 2019 @ 3:11pm

      Re:

      That's a great summary.

      I guess that sometimes, the Law is an ass precisely because it's sometimes its actual job to be just that kind of an ass.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 5:27am

    Back in the days of paper, ISTR reading about meter maids recording the positions of the valves on the tyres to achieve the same purpose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    z! (profile), 26 Apr 2019 @ 10:51am

    So... if chalking a wheel is a trespass, is putting a citation under the windshield wiper also a trespass?

    ('round here, most cities use ALPRs to see if the car was within the regulated zone in the last nn minutes; the officer only stops to place the cite.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 11:21am

      I'd argue it is not a violation, because:

      • putting the citation under the wiper is not done to gather information about the car or its driver, thus it is not a search;

      • there is no other reasonably available, significantly-less-intrusive way of promptly letting the driver know he has been cited for violating a regulation. Delivering it to his house via mail takes days or weeks, and nobody's going to just stand there and wait for whenever the guy comes back and hand it to him.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        kog999, 26 Apr 2019 @ 1:00pm

        Re:

        in addition by the time the office has decided to write you a citation they have at minimum probably cause to believe you have violated a law. that probably cause being whatever made them decide to give you a citation.

        in contrast to the initial placement of the chulk at which time they have no reason to believe you have violated any law and in fact if anything they have evidence that you have not violated any time restrictions (that evidence being the lack of existing chulk on your time).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.