Many cities have parking regulations in their municipal codes to regulate the access and use of the parking spaces for their citizens. As a way to enforce and regulate the time limits for the parking spaces, many cities use tire chalking. “Chalking” is a method of enforcing the time limit for the parking spaces by using chalk to mark a vehicle’s tire. Once the time limit is up in the particular parking zone, the parking enforcement officer returns to see which vehicles have the chalk mark and issues them a citation. Recently, tire chalking has been a topic of discussion as courts throughout the nation have issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of tire chalking.
In 2019, in Taylor v. City of Saginaw, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal (covering several mid-West states) ruled that tire chalking constitutes a “search” under the U.S. Constitution’s 4th Amendment, which generally prohibited warrantless searches by the government. The result is that a warrant would be required simply to chalk a tire for parking enforcement. The Court found that a search occurred because there was “a physical trespass to a constitutionally protected area with the intent to obtain information.” The Court disagreed with the city’s argument that some common exceptions to the 4th Amendment applied, exempting cities from the warrant requirement.
However, more recently, and in a decision that applies to California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Verdun v. City of San Diego, decided that tire chalking is not considered a search under the 4th Amendment because the primary purpose was not gathering evidence or general crime control. The Court held that even if tire chalking were considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, it falls within the administrative search exception, and thus, does not require a warrant before chalking tires to enforce parking regulations. The Court noted that the physical trespass on the vehicle was minimal at most, the trespass was reasonable for traffic control and was not being used for general crime control purposes. The Court acknowledged the importance of enforcing parking regulations to promote public safety. When parking spaces are not regularly available, patrons begin “circling the block,” causing congestion and placing pedestrians and cyclists in danger, and may resort to double parking, which is both illegal and blocks emergency personnel.
The 9th Circuit Court addressed the decision in Taylor stating that Taylor focused on whether there were other parking enforcement methods that would not violate the 4th Amendment, and instead, should have focused on whether tire chalking met the administrative search exception to the warrant requirement.
Tire chalking has been a highly discussed topic, and will remain so as long as parking needs exist. It is clear that courts interpret the meaning of the 4th Amendment differently as well as its exceptions. Due to the ruling in Verdun, cities and counties in California and other 9th Circuit states can continue to use tire chalking as a way to enforce their parking regulations.
