Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

Court rules that chalking tires is unconstitutional

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04 /23/parking-enforcement-c underemployedlawyer04/23/19
I’ll need to read that case, I’m not immediately sure th jorgedeclaro04/23/19
Same here underemployedlawyer04/23/19
Ehh, seems kind of iffy, but the cops are touching your prop therewillbeblood04/23/19
The car can move underemployedlawyer04/23/19
More to the point, if there's not a chalk line on both pavem wutwutwut04/23/19
Can someone explain the rationale behind cities like Saginaw wutwutwut04/23/19
Odd decision. I would've thought the court had any number of onehell04/23/19
"city should prolly appeal this thing to the circuit" T wutwutwut04/24/19
Oops! Brain fart lol. Guess I didn't read carefully because onehell04/24/19
I think all involved were lawyers. Probably did it for some wutwutwut04/24/19
Wasn’t there a SCOTUS case that originated out of Illinois daleycenter04/24/19
I didn't even know this was a thing lolwutjobs04/24/19
At places where I worked, people just went out and rolled th trijocker04/24/19
At places where I worked, people just went out and rolled th trijocker04/24/19
The existence of chalk on the tire, plus the position of th onehell04/24/19
Frankly, it would be easier to assess a nominal fee for a qdllc04/26/19
The cities arent just doing it to make money off parking, th onehell04/26/19
Now the city can raise revenue by putting parking meters on wcdtax04/26/19
underemployedlawyer (Apr 23, 2019 - 1:31 pm)

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/23/parking-enforcement-chalk-tire-court-unconstitutional/

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Apr 23, 2019 - 1:33 pm)

I’ll need to read that case, I’m not immediately sure that makes sense.

Reply
underemployedlawyer (Apr 23, 2019 - 1:40 pm)

Same here

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 23, 2019 - 2:28 pm)

Ehh, seems kind of iffy, but the cops are touching your property. Why not just chalk the street next to the tire?

Reply
underemployedlawyer (Apr 23, 2019 - 2:50 pm)

The car can move

Reply
wutwutwut (Apr 23, 2019 - 6:07 pm)

More to the point, if there's not a chalk line on both pavement and the portion of the tire adjacent to it, there's no indication that this particular car was present when the chalk was applied.

Reply
wutwutwut (Apr 23, 2019 - 6:05 pm)

Can someone explain the rationale behind cities like Saginaw making people move from free parking spot to free parking spot every two hours?

Is it the problem that people who work there hog the spaces (so they don't have to pay a parking deck all day), but then visitors, shoppers and others who just need a short stop, can't find a spot to park?

Reply
onehell (Apr 23, 2019 - 6:33 pm)

Odd decision. I would've thought the court had any number of things it could've said. They could've said parking there constitutes implied consent, at least to such a minimal intrusion, because every darn fool knows metermaids chalk tires and that's a fact of which judicial notice should probably have been taken.

Or they could've said that the 4th amendment has a sort of "de minimis" exemption, as has been found in cases where they prolong a traffic stop waiting for a drug-sniffing dog despite having no probable cause (the purpose of the dog being to generate such probable cause). Or they could've said you just don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for a car parked in public like that, at least not to the extent of chalking the tire which is quite distinguishable from attaching a GPS tracking device as discussed in the case they primarily based this decision on.

Also, I wonder what the impact of this might be in jurisdictions where a parking ticket is a civil case. The exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases, so I don't know if an individual could use the case to defend an individual parking ticket in such jurisdictions. Are people going to start filing 1983 cases arising out of parking tickets? Good luck getting past qualified immunity on that one, lol, not to mention the lack of damages.

This city should prolly appeal this thing to the circuit. As easy as it might be to just adopt more technologically advanced means of determining how long a car has been in a spot, a decision like this is so weird and so contrary to such a long-established norm, that I think it'd be worth getting it overturned which they could probably do.

Reply
wutwutwut (Apr 24, 2019 - 7:44 am)

"city should prolly appeal this thing to the circuit"


This was a 6Cir decision.

Reply
onehell (Apr 24, 2019 - 2:52 pm)

Oops! Brain fart lol. Guess I didn't read carefully because as bizarre as it is for someone to make a federal case out of a parking ticket, a defendant taking a parking ticket all the way to the circuit is even crazier. Wow.

Reply
wutwutwut (Apr 24, 2019 - 4:52 pm)

I think all involved were lawyers. Probably did it for some combination of the principal of the matter, to get the experience of a 6Cir filing/argument, and maybe just for fun.

Reply
daleycenter (Apr 24, 2019 - 10:24 am)

Wasn’t there a SCOTUS case that originated out of Illinois which held that the prolongation of a traffic stop to await the arrival of a drug sniffing dog was a violation of the 4th?

Reply
lolwutjobs (Apr 24, 2019 - 10:25 am)

I didn't even know this was a thing

Reply
trijocker (Apr 24, 2019 - 1:18 pm)

At places where I worked, people just went out and rolled their car until the chalk wore off.
Does the meter attendant also note the license in a database, or what exactly is the basis of challenging the constitutionality?

Reply
trijocker (Apr 24, 2019 - 1:18 pm)

At places where I worked, people just went out and rolled their car until the chalk wore off.
Does the meter attendant also note the license in a database, or what exactly is the basis of challenging the constitutionality?

Reply
onehell (Apr 24, 2019 - 3:03 pm)

The existence of chalk on the tire, plus the position of the chalk on the tire, enables them to prove that the car hasn't moved since the chalk was put on.

Picture, for example, a parking spot that says "2 hours maximum." If all they have is a record that the car was in that spot at 2:00PM and also at 4:30PM, they may not be able to prove that the car didn't move at some point in between, which would reset the clock.

But, if you see the same car in the same spot at those same times, and the chalk is still there and still at the 12:00 noon position on the tire, it is highly unlikely that the car moved in between and just so happened to have managed to park with the tires in the exact same position as they rotate around. That's something that merely recording plates can't tell you.

Some more modern jurisdictions have sensors on the spot that can detect movement, and this combined with a picture of a plate would do the trick. But implementing such solutions costs money, which is probably the reason the low-tech solution is preferred. But this court thinks that's a trespass, and since any violation would not yet have been committed at the time the metermaid chalks the tire, it is quite literally a means of trying to detect an infraction that has not yet occurred, which means it's impossible for them to have probable cause and thus not only do they not get a warrant, they couldn't get one anyway because no wrong has yet been committed.

I guess they could just tweak the ordinance. Make it 2 hours cumulative in any 24 hour period instead of consecutive, for example, so that moving the car in between time A and time B would no longer be relevant. Either that, or come up with some kind of more technologically advanced solution. Or, just make the infraction purely civil where there is no exclusionary rule and keep right on chalking, and just hope people won't bother to bring a 1983 over a parking ticket.

Or they could just say you can stay as long as you want as long as you keep feeding the meter and eliminate the time limit altogether. But a lot of jurisdictions don't want to do that as they don't want people to be able to park there all day even if they do pay in full for the privilege. Local businesses want cars to move, they don't want commuters just parking there all day, because they want customers coming and going. City councils get a lot of pressure from chambers of commerce related to parking ordinances for this reason.

Reply
qdllc (Apr 26, 2019 - 6:48 am)

Frankly, it would be easier to assess a nominal fee for a “permit” to allow people to park all day in time restricted spaces...these should be limited to people who work in the area.

I interned in Cheyenne, and nary a space to be had. We did the “2 hour waltz” to avoid being cited for parking near the office downtown. Seems it would be more cost effective to issue permits rather than pay someone to try to write citations...which then need to be collected against.

Reply
onehell (Apr 26, 2019 - 10:28 am)

The cities arent just doing it to make money off parking, they also want sales tax money and a happy chamber of commerce. If you want people buying stuff from downtown businesses you want them to be able to park. Commuters just leave a car there all day and don’t buy anything, so even if they pay you still need the cars to vacate spots periodically.

Also, tickets aren’t that hard to enforce because you can boot or tow the car and/or notify DMV to block a registration renewal.

Reply
wcdtax (Apr 26, 2019 - 8:37 am)

Now the city can raise revenue by putting parking meters on the street. When people complain they can describe the problem and everyone can thank the attorney. Then they can get money for parking PLUS enforceable tickets.

His fight for the people is going to force everyone to pay more, congrats.

Reply
Post a message in this thread