[bennylope]

The court later issued a clarification basically upholding the logic of their ruling but stating that because the chalking was part of valid [regulatory] activities (below) the chalking is okay[0].

> Rather, we hold, based on the pleading stage of this litigation, that two exceptions to the warrant requirement—the “community caretaking” exception and the motor-vehicle exception—do not apply here. Our holding extends no further than this.

From the court's order[1]:

> Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE.

[0] https://www.sixthcircuitappellateblog.com/recent-cases/sixth... [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/17...

[owenmarshall]

I don't think that's the right reading. At least, that's not how I read it.

> Alison Taylor, a frequent recipient of parking tickets, sued the City and its parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins, alleging that chalking violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. The City moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted the City’s motion, finding that, while chalking may have constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was reasonable. Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE

The sixth circuit has reversed the district court's dismissal that the search was reasonable. Both the sixth circuit and the lower court agree that marking the tire is a search; the lower court dismissed and held that the search was reasonable.

The amended decision says that once the case advances the city can argue that their actions fall under 4th amendment exceptions, but that their current motion did not sufficiently make that argument.

The chalking may be found OK during further proceedings, depending on how the city argued, but at the time that decision was issued it was not.

[bennylope]

Yeah, I think I've mixed something up.

I was [lightly] researching this a few weeks back and am pretty sure I found that the net effect of the final ruling was that for the purpose of enforcing regulations [any] city could mark tires, and that because it the outside of the vehicle on public property it was not trespass...

[SilasX]

So, am I understanding that right, that they're upholding the chalking-tires technique, but saying it holds up for reasons other than the vehicle and caretaking exceptions?

Also:

>>Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise

It should not be legal for judges to make puns like that.

(Edited to add substantive remark that belonged here as well.)

[gowld]

It was a very technical decision that clarified the parameters of the debate and sent it back to be re-judged. They didn't uphold/knockdown anything. They did say that chalking a tire is a "search" (using bad logic, IMO), but did not rule that it was "unreasonable".