Alison Taylor v. City of Saginaw
922 F.3d 328 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The warrantless chalking of a vehicle's tires is a search under the Fourth Amendment because it constitutes a common-law trespass upon an 'effect' for the purpose of obtaining information. Such a search is presumptively unreasonable and violates the Fourth Amendment unless the government can establish that a valid exception to the warrant requirement applies.
Facts:
- The City of Saginaw employs a parking enforcement method known as 'chalking,' where officers use chalk to mark the tires of parked vehicles.
- This practice is used to track the duration a vehicle has been parked in a particular spot.
- Parking enforcement officers return after the designated time limit has passed to check for the chalk marks.
- If the marks are still present, indicating the vehicle has not moved, the officer issues a parking citation.
- Between 2014 and 2017, City parking officer Tabitha Hoskins marked Alison Taylor's vehicle tires with chalk on fifteen separate occasions.
- As a result of the chalking, Hoskins issued fifteen parking citations to Taylor.
Procedural Posture:
- Alison Taylor filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Saginaw and parking officer Tabitha Hoskins in the United States District Court.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The district court held that while chalking was a search, it was reasonable due to the lesser expectation of privacy in automobiles and the community caretaker exception.
- Taylor, as the appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless chalking of a vehicle's tires by a municipal parking officer for the purpose of enforcing parking regulations constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Donald, J.
Yes. The warrantless chalking of a vehicle's tires for parking enforcement is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment when no valid exception to the warrant requirement applies. First, the court determines that chalking is a 'search' by applying the property-based trespass test from United States v. Jones. The act of placing chalk on a tire is an intentional physical touching of a constitutionally protected 'effect' (the vehicle), which constitutes a common-law trespass. This trespass is performed for the express purpose of obtaining information—specifically, whether the vehicle has remained in place for longer than the permitted time. Having established that chalking is a search, the court then addresses its reasonableness. Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, and the burden is on the government to prove an exception. The City's reliance on the automobile exception fails because there was no probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime at the time of the search. The court also rejects the community caretaker exception, reasoning that this exception applies only when government agents are performing functions related to public safety, not when their purpose is regulatory enforcement or revenue generation. Since Taylor's legally parked car posed no public safety hazard, the City was not acting as a community caretaker, and therefore the warrantless search was unreasonable.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the Fourth Amendment's property-based search doctrine, as revitalized in United States v. Jones, to seemingly minor, low-tech governmental intrusions. By classifying tire chalking as a search, the court reinforces that any physical trespass by the government on private property to obtain information requires constitutional justification. The ruling also narrowly construes the community caretaker exception, limiting its application to genuine public safety concerns and preventing its use as a justification for routine regulatory or revenue-generating activities. This precedent could compel municipalities nationwide to reconsider common parking enforcement techniques and seek alternative methods that do not involve a warrantless physical search of a vehicle.
