Keep your chalk off'a my damn tires --- U.S. Appeals Court ruling.

Chalking tires to validate a time violation is trespass unless accompanied by a warrant -- 4th Amendment violation.

yet some surly HS dropout can continue to fondle my man taint merely cause I need to fly to Milwaukee.

The U.S. Appeals Court has nothing better to hear?  This is why we are where we are today.  I mean it is great that we have a system where you can fight for your rights, and if you feel wronged by the first judge you get to go above that judge.  But allowing this case to go this far is a little ridiculous.  Someone got a parking ticket they didn't want to pay so they bitched about chalk on their tires.  What a waste of time and money.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:
Chalking tires to validate a time violation is trespass unless accompanied by a warrant -- 4th Amendment violation.

 Why isn't putting a ticket in he windshield a trespass?

EricBurbank said:
The U.S. Appeals Court has nothing better to hear?  This is why we are where we are today.  I mean it is great that we have a system where you can fight for your rights, and if you feel wronged by the first judge you get to go above that judge.  But allowing this case to go this far is a little ridiculous.  Someone got a parking ticket they didn't want to pay so they bitched about chalk on their tires.  What a waste of time and money.

 Plaintiff had been issued multiple tickets by the same employee of a for-profit parking enforcement contractor 

Robert_Casotto said:
yet some surly HS dropout can continue to fondle my man taint merely cause I need to fly to Milwaukee.

 That dropout is getting his GED in June  and he’s gonna be your supervisor 

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

 Plaintiff had been issued multiple tickets by the same employee of a for-profit parking enforcement contractor 

 So in other words she is a scofflaw who is above following the law

LOST said:
 Why isn't putting a ticket in he windshield a trespass?

 At that point there is presumably a reasonable belief that a violation has been committed and therefore they have probable cause.  Just like they don’t need a warrant to arrest you (generally speaking):

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

Robert_Casotto said:
yet some surly HS dropout can continue to fondle my man taint merely cause I need to fly to Milwaukee.

 That dropout is getting his GED in June  and he’s gonna be your supervisor 

 How sexist.  Could be a she.

I always wondered how marking private property that is not being sworn out in violation (ie, why it’s ok to put a ticket on your windshield) was ok constitutionally. Apparently (for now) its not.

What if it was grease pen? Spray paint? A sticker on your bumper? What level of duty placed on the individual by the state to clean up marks on your fly low-profile tires passes constitutional muster?

Actually would make a good con law mock case.

EricBurbank said:
The U.S. Appeals Court has nothing better to hear?  This is why we are where we are today. 

The plaintiff took it to District Court which is obligated to hear the case. The loser then appealed.

The SC can decide to not hear cases but do we want other courts to have that right? To decide a case is trivial so we won't hear it? That could be a slippery slope.

Actually, there's a longstanding tradition of dismissing cases as being too trivial for courts to consider. I tend to be on the freedom loving side of discourse here but this seems kinda dopey.  Chalk.  Sheesh.  

I haven't read the opinion, but I wonder if the town argued that consent was given to mark the tires by parking on public property.  Sort of like you consent to a breathalyzer by getting a license.

Steve said:
I haven't read the opinion, but I wonder if the town argued that consent was given to mark the tires by parking on public property.  Sort of like you consent to a breathalyzer by getting a license.

The town made these two arguments, according to the ruling:

“The City responds that, even if chalking is a search under Jones, the search was reasonable because there is a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile. The City further contends that the search was subject to the community caretaker exception. We disagree with the City.”

Thanks.  Not familiar with the community care exception, but the reduced expectation of privacy is a bad argument.

ETA:  Just read about the CCE.  I can't believe that they made that argument.  How is it rendering aid to chalk a tire?

Steve said:
Thanks.  Not familiar with the community care exception, but the reduced expectation of privacy is a bad argument.
ETA:  Just read about the CCE.  I can't believe that they made that argument.  How is it rendering aid to chalk a tire?

 911 ---

911: "What's your emergency?"

Me: "I think I'm having a heart attack."

911: "What's your location?"

Me: "I'm in my car, parked on Maplewood Avenue, in front of Mapleleaf. My front tires are in one parking space and my rear tires are in another parking space. Its the black car with the chalk mark on the rear tire. If you're not sure, a picture of my car is on the M.O.L. thread, 'How to park like a tool."

bub said:
Actually, there's a longstanding tradition of dismissing cases as being too trivial for courts to consider. I tend to be on the freedom loving side of discourse here but this seems kinda dopey.  Chalk.  Sheesh.  

Actually, not in the Federal District courts. A case hearing is required. If there is insufficient proof from the plaintiff or some other valid reason then a case may be dismissed. 

To overturn a district court ruling you need to go to the Appeal Court. The appeal court is not going to say "oh, its so trivial, we won't bother", leaving the trial court ruling in place. The Appeal Court is not trial court. The appeal court is there to review lower court rulings against applicable statutes and the constitution to see if there is no conflict and to provide correction when a the lower court makes a mistake. The appeal court may confirm, reverse or/and remand back to the trial court.