A win for libertarians: Parking enforcement and the 4th

[JettaKnight]

Not exactly sure what to think here...
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/7162...for-parking-enforcement-violates-constitution

 

[Bigtanker]

I read that earlier. Personally, I think that's a big stretch. A chalk mark on a tire is equal to unreasonable search?

 

[actaeon277]

So now they'll use digital camera

 

[JHB]

So now they'll use digital camera

Then bill us for the camera. Wonder why our taxes are as high as they are.

 

[JettaKnight]

I read that earlier. Personally, I think that's a big stretch. A chalk mark on a tire is equal to unreasonable search?

That's gotta be some serious parking fines when it becomes more economical to battle it to district appeals court instead of paying what you owe.

 

[JettaKnight]

Then bill us for the camera. Wonder why our taxes are as high as they are.

Unfortunately the honor system is broken.



Don't they typically just raise the parking prices? We got fancy new meters that take CC and rates doubled.

 

[JHB]

I knew a woman in NJ that had a flower shop about 50 years ago. She had enough parking tickets to fill a gym bag. They were all from delivery's. NJ finely pulled her plates and summoned her to court. Have no ldea were it went from there.

 

[Alamo]

One of the local problems in my town is theft from vehicles parked with valuable items left in view. The cops are trying to get a handle on it. One recent initiative is that an officer who observes stuff in your parked car may put a flyer on your car warning that you are at higher risk of burglary.

I think our local PD generally does a good job and I like them, but I find this flyer business annoying and nannying (and no I have not received such a flyer).

So after the OP, I now wonder if the cops are illegally or unconstitutionally trespassing with their flyers?

It's not a search (which was the focus of the case in the OP), but the opinion notes that chalking a tire constitutes common-law trespass upon a constitutionally protected area, i.e. a personal vehicle in a public arena.

In accordance with Jones, the threshold question is whether chalking constitutes common-law trespass upon a constitutionally protected area. Though Jones does not provide clear boundaries for the meaning of common-law trespass, the Restatement offers some assistance. As defined by the Restatement, common-law trespass is "an act which brings [about] intended physical contact with a chattel in the possession of another." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 217 cmt. e (1965). Moreover, "[a]n actor may . . . commit a trespass by so acting upon a chattel as intentionally to cause it to come in contact with some other object." Id. Adopting this definition, there has been a trespass in this case because the City made intentional physical contact with Taylor’s vehicle. As the district court properly found, this physical intrusion, regardless of how slight, constitutes common-law trespass. This is so, even though "no damage [is done] at all." Jones, 565 U.S. at 405 (quoting Entick v. Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817 (C.P. 1765)).

So if the cops -- or anyone else -- leaves a flyer under my windshield wiper, are they trespassing? Looks like "yes." Is it illegal? Hmmm. Is it illegaler if the gummint does it? Or not illegal because of the "implied license" given by the fact that common citizens do this to each others' cars on a regular basis?

ETA: Hmmm. Looks like it might fall under the "community caretaker" function.

 

[BugI02]

Unfortunately the honor system is broken.



Don't they typically just raise the parking prices? We got fancy new meters that take CC and rates doubled.

I'm assuming there is big money in parking if you do it right. In a congested entertainment/urban residential district here in Columbus they just rolled out a parking website and app. Parking enforcement vehicles using plate reading tech like police have drive slowly around the area comparing plates on parked cars in realtime to the database of cars registered with the app by location and paying for parking. If you're parked in the area and not registered/paying it's $50 and the system has enough repetitiveness to the scans to also police maximum parking time limits. Overstay and its the same fine even though you have been paying up until that point, and presumably they'll cheerfully accept fees for a fourth hour before they fine you if you're scanned. If you patronize a local business (my tax attorney has his office in the area) they can confer parking privileges via a link through the same portal. If the car comes by before the business succeeds in registering you, I assume you will need to appeal the fine unless there is some kind of temporal buffering

At first I thought this seemed like an expensive and tyrannical system; but on further consideration, since there is no required installation of meters and collection infrastructure, the system is likely considerably cheaper to implement and maintain than meter based extortion. In light of that, I now only think it's tyrannical and hope its day in court is coming soon

 

[HoughMade]

So there's no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when someone looks through the windows of a parked car to see what they can see, but there is, if you apply a small chalk mark to a tire.

Gotcha.

Boy...even the judges are taking that MJ legalization in Michigan seriously.

 

[rosejm]

So now, they'll just chalk the pavement...

Nothing to see here, now move your car.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Okay, so the issue is, people are parking where parking is not allowed (or at the very least, not allowed unless you pay for it via a meter). The argument is that it is a "public street". It seems to me that the same logic could apply to government (public) buildings where one must pass through a metal detector to determine that you're not carrying a weapon. It's a public building. Citizens have a right to be there (allegedly) just like on a public street, right? So GFZ's, enforced by "searching" someone with a metal detector or other means is unconstitutional by this court's logic.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If anyone watches the show "Parking Wars", they frequently "boot" illegally parked cars, making them undriveable. Is that now unconstitutional as well? So many questions...

 

[Mongo59]

Only one logical answer...

Move to the country!

I get nervous at the sight of pavement, panic at the sight of curbs, postal at parking meters...

 

[KLB]

So there's no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when someone looks through the windows of a parked car to see what they can see, but there is, if you apply a small chalk mark to a tire.

Gotcha.

Boy...even the judges are taking that MJ legalization in Michigan seriously.

How is physically marking a car the same as looking at or in it? I agree with the judges that it would be closer to attaching a GPS device. Get a warrant if you want to mark it.

 

[cce1302]

Very small win. Bigger cities have been using advanced technology for years.

 

[printcraft]

If anyone watches the show "Parking Wars", they frequently "boot" illegally parked cars, making them undriveable. Is that now unconstitutional as well? So many questions...

Damn the torpedoes!

[video=youtube;fqaBloQKzZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqaBloQKzZY[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

How is physically marking a car the same as looking at or in it? I agree with the judges that it would be closer to attaching a GPS device. Get a warrant if you want to mark it.

It seems pretty clear to me that looking to see what the driver/owner has inside the vehicle is more of an invasion of their privacy than leaving mt own, non-harmful, non-obstructive mark on a tire which tells me nothing about what the driver is carrying around. One involves touching and one not, sure, but that seems like a distinction that misses the whole point of privacy and what a "search" really is.

 

[indiucky]

It seems pretty clear to me that looking to see what the driver/owner has inside the vehicle is more of an invasion of their privacy than leaving mt own, non-harmful, non-obstructive mark on a tire which tells me nothing about what the driver is carrying around. One involves touching and one not, sure, but that seems like a distinction that misses the whole point of privacy and what a "search" really is.

[video=youtube;CftYFV84BZE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftYFV84BZE[/video]

 

[Methane Herder]

I read that earlier. Personally, I think that's a big stretch. A chalk mark on a tire is equal to unreasonable search?

Vandalism. Defacing private property. I know of no I.C. That allows for temporary or permanent defacement of private property.Even a properly licensed and taxed vehicle, currently legally parked on a public street.

Corrections appreciated!

MH