There is a dance that takes place every weekday in cities and towns across the country, and it begins with people walking outside to look at their tires.
If there is a chalk mark, they know that sometime in the next hour or two, they will need to move their cars to avoid a parking ticket. No mark? They return to work, only to come back out later and check again.
“The parking-lot shuffle,” said Alison Taylor, 38, who works in the advertising department of the local newspaper in Saginaw, Mich.
Thanks to Ms. Taylor, this strange dance may be coming to an abrupt end. She sued the city of Saginaw, and on Monday, a panel of three federal judges hearing an appeal in the case ruled unanimously that the police practice of chalking tires to tell whether a car overstays the time limit on a parking space is unconstitutional.
Chalking violates the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judges said, reversing a lower court’s decision to dismiss the suit and sending it back for trial instead.
Chalking is a straightforward exercise. A parking enforcement officer marks the tires of cars parked in time-limited spots; when the officer returns later, the mark, a sort of pre-emptive scarlet letter, reveals that it has been there an illegally long time. Though officers these days may also take time-stamped photographs to document the infraction, “chalking tires is very old-fashioned,” said Donald Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The first references I’ve seen to it were in the 1920s.”
Every city with a parking ordinance probably used chalking at one time, Professor Shoup said, but the practice is becoming less common, replaced by computerized meters, pay-by-phone apps and digital vehicle recognition systems, including one called autoChalk. The manual version has always been arbitrary and inefficient anyway, Professor Shoup said: “The enforcement is kind of random, so whenever you get a ticket you say, ‘Why me?’”
The legal campaign against chalking in Saginaw started on a weekday in the fall of 2016, when Matthew Gronda, a local lawyer, was sitting in his car outside the county courthouse talking on the phone to another lawyer, Philip Ellison. During their conversation, a parking enforcement officer came by and chalked Mr. Gronda’s tire.
“Hey, this is a search,” Mr. Gronda recalled telling Mr. Ellison.
Out of curiosity at first, the two men began to research the legal question of tire-chalking, and soon found a major opening in a 2012 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Jones. That case involved a man named Antoine Jones who was convicted based in part on data from a GPS tracker that the police had secretly attached to his car without obtaining a valid warrant.
The court ruled unanimously that Mr. Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, but was divided on why that was so. In a concurring opinion joined by four justices, it was the long-term surveillance of Mr. Jones, made possible and even easy by technological advancements, that was the real issue.
But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the five-justice majority, held that the heart of the matter was the physical placement of a device on Mr. Jones’s “private property, for the purpose of obtaining information.” It was this “government trespass,” he wrote, that made the use of the tracker without a warrant an unconstitutional search.
Some saw problems with this.
“The trespass theory went too far, and not far enough,” said Peter Swire, a privacy-law expert who teaches at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
On the one hand, he said, “it didn’t go far enough in Jones, because it seemed to allow for tracking locations as long as no one touched the car.” But on the other, he continued, it went too far “because even tiny touches become illegal.”
For the lawyers in Saginaw, the ruling was the whole ballgame.
“But for Jones,” Mr. Gronda said, “this case would have not been filed.”
While the two lawyers were researching the issue — learning among other things that Saginaw’s revenue from parking tickets could add up to 0,000 a year, one or ticket at a time — Ms. Taylor came across a Facebook post by Mr. Ellison. She said he was “kind of venting about the ticketing process,” and she joined in the comments beneath the post with grievances of her own.
“One, nobody should touch my car,” she said, listing her objections to chalking. “Two, it’s not a reliable source to get information. Because it’s chalk, you know.”
The lawyers had their plaintiff. Ms. Taylor had gotten 14 parking tickets in three years, all written by the same officer, “the most prolific issuer of parking tickets” for the city of Saginaw, as the complaint puts it.
The Saginaw city manager’s office referred questions about the matter to lawyers representing the city in the lawsuit, neither of whom returned multiple messages seeking comment.
Where Ms. Taylor works, there is a lot where she could park free all day, but she said the lot was across from a liquor store and would often be scattered with broken glass in the mornings. Like many others at her office, she preferred to park on the street or in another nearby lot, where parking was free but with a two-hour limit. And like many, she became familiar with the enforcement officer and her chalk.
“There should be a better way to track this,” she said. “What if it’s raining one day?”
The trial court that heard her suit sided with the city in a 2017 decision, agreeing that chalking constituted a search but finding that it was a reasonable one. Among other legal rationales, the judge found that the police have the authority to enforce parking regulations, even to tow cars, as an exercise of “community caretaking.”
The Sixth Circuit judges disagreed, finding that the enforcement of a two-hour parking limit was not a matter of public safety, but simply a way of raising revenue. Nor, they said, was there any probable cause to justify the search, since the chalk marks are made on cars that, at that time, are still legally parked.
And so, the three judges said rather drolly, “because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function,” they sided with Ms. Taylor.
It is unclear what will happen now in the wake of the decision, which is binding in the four states covered by the Sixth Circuit — Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. But the Downtown Development Authority in nearby Bay City, Mich., announced this week that in light of the ruling, it would no longer chalk cars.
Bay City is working on an alternative to chalking, said Suzanne Maxwell, the director of the authority, but in the meantime, it has no procedure for enforcing time limits in free spots downtown.
“We’re looking out for our business owners,” Ms. Maxwell said of parking enforcement, which she expects to resume before long. Still, she said of the mood at the moment: “Most people are elated.”B:
【第】262【章】【不】【重】【要】【了】 【基】【洛】【夫】【格】【勒】【之】【星】【雷】【耶】***【多】【乐】【士】**【已】【经】【突】【破】【了】【罗】【夫】【诺】【维】【雷】【斯】【尤】【里】【乌】【斯】***【多】【乐】【士】**【的】【防】【线】，【在】【一】【旁】【不】【断】【传】【来】【恒】【利】【威】【尔】【威】【廉】【在】【深】【秋】【接】【手】【了】【这】【支】【运】【营】【自】【本】【公】【司】，【这】【支】【运】【营】【自】【本】【公】【司】【立】【即】【飞】【向】【罗】【夫】【诺】【维】【雷】【斯】【尤】【里】【乌】【斯】***【的】【多】【乐】【士】**。 【基】【洛】【夫】【格】【勒】【之】【星】【雷】【耶】***【库】【尔】** 【罗】【夫】
【不】【远】【处】【传】【来】【了】【阵】【阵】【鼓】【声】，【一】【眼】【望】【去】，【尘】【埃】【飞】【扬】，【犹】【如】【千】【军】【万】【马】【在】【奔】【腾】【一】【般】，【但】【定】【眼】【一】【看】，【奔】【腾】【的】【却】【不】【是】【战】【马】，【而】【是】【一】【个】【个】【拿】【着】**【的】【士】【兵】，【以】【极】【快】【的】【速】【度】【一】【同】【向】【欢】【乐】【谷】【奔】【袭】【而】【来】。 “【报】～【报】【告】【少】【主】，【前】【方】【不】【知】【什】【么】【军】【队】，【正】【在】【向】【欢】【乐】【谷】【袭】【来】。”【探】【子】【回】【来】【报】【告】【说】【道】。 “【全】【军】【听】【令】。”【令】【芳】【大】【声】【喊】【到】，“【这】【次】【可】【能】
【古】【晋】【心】【头】【仿】【佛】【被】【重】【锤】【一】【击】，【瞬】【间】【清】【醒】【过】【来】：“【古】【晋】【谢】【过】【瑶】【婳】【前】【辈】【的】【提】【点】，【只】【是】【前】【辈】【讥】【笑】【的】【对】【象】，【既】【是】【昊】【端】【圣】【祖】【的】【后】【裔】，【也】【就】【是】【瑶】【婳】【前】【辈】【的】【后】【裔】。” 【瑶】【婳】【笑】【声】【一】【敛】，【寒】【声】【道】：“【够】【了】，【瑶】【婳】【此】【生】【爱】【错】【一】【人】，【最】【后】【被】【他】【无】【情】【鸠】【杀】，【形】【容】【腐】【蚀】【无】【形】，【哪】【来】【的】【子】【孙】【后】【裔】【留】【存】【在】【世】！【如】【今】【衍】【姮】【不】【在】，【绿】【萝】【势】【弱】，【我】【对】【你】【无】【可】【奈】【何】2017152新版跑狗图【落】【十】【五】【道】：“【太】【后】【好】【像】【丢】【了】【一】【件】【重】【要】【的】【东】【西】，【具】【体】【是】【什】【么】【物】【件】？【并】【没】【有】【透】【露】【出】【来】。” “【整】【个】【皇】【城】【都】【封】【锁】【了】【出】【入】【口】，【也】【许】，【再】【过】【不】【久】【就】【会】【有】【大】【队】【人】【马】【到】【处】【开】【始】【盘】【查】【了】。” 【萧】【雨】【弦】：“【能】【让】【祈】【峻】【夜】【冒】【着】【生】【命】【危】【险】【去】【盗】【的】【东】【西】，【肯】【定】【有】【它】【的】【价】【值】【所】【在】。” “【最】【近】【这】【段】【时】【间】【风】【声】【很】【紧】，【你】【不】【就】【不】【要】【外】【出】【了】，【就】【待】【在】【宅】
【除】【了】【慕】【容】【华】【一】【脸】【沮】【丧】，【其】【余】【三】【大】【家】【族】【纷】【纷】【亮】【出】【底】【牌】！ “【一】【千】【五】【百】【万】【源】【铢】！” 【随】【着】【萧】【战】【最】【后】【一】【声】，【夜】【家】、【北】【堂】【家】，【顿】【时】【陷】【入】【一】【片】【沉】【寂】。 “【父】【亲】，【我】【们】【的】【源】【铢】【不】【多】【了】。” 【夜】【明】【阳】【提】【醒】【道】：“【但】【还】【能】【做】【最】【后】【一】【搏】。” 【夜】【海】【盯】【着】【七】【色】【妖】【兽】【蛋】，【虽】【说】【九】【洲】【与】【妖】【魔】【海】【曾】【有】【血】【仇】，【但】【这】【并】【不】【影】【响】【他】【们】【对】【力】【量】【的】【追】【求】
【待】【改】 【一】【句】【真】【心】【的】【话】，【真】【心】【的】【人】【从】【说】【的】【话】，【哪】【怕】【不】【是】【刻】【意】【的】【去】【甜】，【也】【甜】【过】【时】【间】【万】【千】【的】【甜】【言】【蜜】【语】。 “【还】【真】【是】【不】【一】【样】【了】【啊】，【以】【前】【就】【没】【见】【你】【这】【么】【会】【说】【话】【啊】”【夜】【安】【好】【的】【手】【捏】【住】【陵】【晟】【的】【脸】，【把】【他】【脸】【当】【面】【团】【一】【样】【轻】【轻】【揉】【捏】【着】。 “【我】【以】【前】【也】【这】【样】【啊】，【只】【是】【那】【个】【时】【候】，【你】【来】【不】【及】【听】【到】【我】【说】”【陵】【晟】【小】【声】【嘀】【咕】。 “【你】【说】【什】【么】？”【夜】【安】【好】【没】
【接】【下】【来】【的】【研】【究】【让】【白】【烨】【有】【些】【头】【皮】【发】【麻】！ 【他】【怎】【么】【也】【想】【不】【到】，【对】【方】【要】【做】【的】【事】【情】【绝】【不】【仅】【仅】【是】【一】【个】【公】【司】【那】【么】【简】【单】。 【等】【他】【的】【基】【因】【工】【程】【等】【级】【提】【升】【至】ｌｖ７【以】【后】，【他】【发】【现】【这】【个】【世】【界】【不】【一】【样】【了】。 【基】【因】【可】【能】【是】【人】【类】【最】【宝】【贵】【的】【财】【富】！ 【多】【元】【化】【的】【基】【因】【不】【断】【地】【重】【组】，【不】【断】【地】【在】【创】【造】【各】【种】【各】【样】【的】【奇】【迹】。 【甚】【至】【人】【类】【的】【发】【展】【史】【不】【仅】【仅】【是】