U.S. Court of Appeals Deems Tire Chalking As Unconstitutional

I don't understand the logic behind this decision. Chalk marking does not require entering the vehicle. They could accomplish the same thing with a time-stamped photo (takes longer and costs more). The chalk mark is gone from the tire within a block of moving the car. Do they instead want parking meters everywhere? So instead of free, time restricted parking you now have pay parking, and it's still time restricted.

A waste of time and resources to reach a pointless decision

BTW the issue is the marking of the tire.. no one says you cant mark the concrete

Time restrictions on parking is usually to allow businesses to have parking available throughout the day, rather than someone taking the space indefinitely. I don't think it's pointless to enforce time limits for parking.

NOT a pointless decision. Tire chalking is used as proof that a vehicle was parked too long but the presence of the chalk mark does not guarantee that the vehicle was parked too long. THUS, vehicles' tires can be chalked and tickets written immediately to facilitate revenue enhancement. It's also a clear case of surveillance for the potential commission of a "crime" without probably cause that a crime will be committed.

Matt, you don't understand the way it works. They make their rounds based on time. They mark the tire on the first pass. If it's still there on the second pass , they mark again. Because they know how long between each pass (let's say 60 minutes for even numbers), if they've marked it twice, and it's a 2 hour zone, then they can write the ticket. If there's not enough marks to show it's over limit, they just mark it again and check the next go around.

Now, could some unscrupulous (or lazy) person just mark it twice at the same time and write the ticket? Sure, there are dishonest people everywhere. But I trust most people to do the job right and follow the rules.

No. You're wrong. I understand it VERY WELL.

They CLAIM they make their round based on time, but there is no guarantee that it is truthful.

The body cam an officer wears captures the speed when a speeding ticket is issued usually.

To say "Well most follow the protocol and sure there are some unscrupulous ones, but most follow the protocol" is to say that the practice does not provide equal protection under the law.

These kind of tickets are a REVENUE MAKING scheme for cities pure and simple.

pointless it went to a federal court

Judge probably got a ticket this way and is still pissed. To overcome this and to support local merchants our small village has ordered special license readers that trigger meter feeders on a time
lapsed basis.

@leroisF40 atc98092 wants to throw out a citizen's right to protection from illegal surveillance and equal protection under the law. You can't reason with fakking socialists, so ignore him.

Are you all for our rights to be violated for the shop owners and patrons convenience? The article very clearly states that the chalking or any form of monitoring your parking is a surveillance and therefore becomes a illegal act. The court upheld the constitutional rights set out to us rather than siding with the city law makers and police who did not care about how the law they try to enforce is unconstitutional. Yet you all are making a joke out of it rather than applauding a judge who followed his oath to uphold the rights of the citizens afforded by the founding documents.

What right are you referring to? To exceed the lawful time limits on a public parking space without consequence? When your vehicle is parked on a public street, it's not surveillance to notate a time the vehicle was observed parked in the public space, and to determine if it is there beyond lawful limits. If this court declared that as surveillance, then it was an erroneous decision and I hope it's overturned.

Now if said vehicle is parked on private property, and the owner of said property has not given permission to mark the tires as such, then you have a point. But not when it's parked on a public street.

Atc98092: you do understand that public street is owned by the US citizen and not the city or state. You do understand that our constitution clearly defined we the people as control over the government and not the government controlling the people. Our rights afford us as citizens is unipeded freedom of movement throughout our(the citizens) country. Charging us to park is one of the many impediments put on us illegally and in total violation of the constitution. You are welcome to move to any other country that does not have the US Constitution but you are not allowed to violate mine or any other citizens rights so you can conviniently find parking when you want it. As stated in my original post, the judge is upholding his oath to constitutional governance of law.

No, the citizen does not "own" the street. It is owned by the government for the good of the public. Yes, in our republic the power in general rests with the people. But we elect people to govern the populace, again for the common good. Part of that governance is passing laws to keep order and again provide for the common good. You have no constitutional right to free parking. You don't even have unimpeded freedom of movement. There are places you are not allowed to enter without proper authorization.

I am conservative, bordering on libertarian, but I don't support your viewpoint. What you are describing is closer to anarchy than a republic of laws.