Not exactly sure what to think here...
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/7162...for-parking-enforcement-violates-constitution
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/7162...for-parking-enforcement-violates-constitution
So now they'll use digital camera
I read that earlier. Personally, I think that's a big stretch. A chalk mark on a tire is equal to unreasonable search?
Unfortunately the honor system is broken.Then bill us for the camera. Wonder why our taxes are as high as they are.
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)).
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.
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.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.
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...
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.
I read that earlier. Personally, I think that's a big stretch. A chalk mark on a tire is equal to unreasonable search?