Cars and the Fourth Amendment
newramblerreview.com
Cars and the Fourth Amendment
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#2Cars are an interesting area because I immediately thought of our digital presence as an even more modern area of struggle for an expansive interpretation of our rights. If cars are an area of contention, in a sense, as a portable piece of our homes and persons, then our data and digital presence should similarly be considered our persons, "papers and effects" under the fourth amendment.
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#3Cars are an interesting area because I immediately thought of our digital presence as an even more modern area of struggle for an expansive interpretation of our rights. If cars are an area of contention, in a sense, as a portable piece of our homes and persons, then our data and digital presence should similarly be considered our persons, "papers and effects" under the fourth amendment.
I don’t if I’d want to go in that direction because “behavior” can lead to probable cause... so probable cause to look at your phone too?
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#4Cars are an interesting area because I immediately thought of our digital presence as an even more modern area of struggle for an expansive interpretation of our rights. If cars are an area of contention, in a sense, as a portable piece of our homes and persons, then our data and digital presence should similarly be considered our persons, "papers and effects" under the fourth amendment.
I don’t if I’d want to go in that direction because “behavior” can lead to probable cause... so probable cause to look at your phone too?
If the fourth amendment doesn't apply to your phone, then your phone can be looked at anytime by authorities with no need to cite probable cause, nor a warrant. Or am I missing something?
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#5An old parking enforcement technique is to put a chalk mark on a car's tire: if you come back after two hours and see the same car with the marked tire you know that it has parked too long and can be ticketed.
The 6th circuit recently ruled that is an unconstitutional search[1]: a government agent is physically intruding on a private area (your car) and searching it for information (how long it's been there).
Neat stuff.
[1]http://www.patc.com/articles/2019_taylor_v_saginaw_chapman.p...
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t if I’d want to go in that direction because “behavior” can lead to probable cause... so probable cause to look at your phone too?
If the fourth amendment doesn't apply to your phone, then your phone can be looked at anytime by authorities with no need to cite probable cause, nor a warrant. Or am I missing something?
I don't think digital technology needs to apply here at all. Before there were phones, were authorities able to stop you and look through your personal papers or briefcase or other personal effects you were carrying, without probably cause or a warrant? I don't think. A phone isn't any different, it's just a lot smaller than a briefcase.
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#7An old parking enforcement technique is to put a chalk mark on a car's tire: if you come back after two hours and see the same car with the marked tire you know that it has parked too long and can be ticketed. The 6th circuit recently ruled that is an unconstitutional search[1]: a government agent is physically intruding on a private area (your car) and searching it for information (how long it's been there). Neat st…
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...
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#8A friend was and LAPD detective for 35 years. He said it gets a lot more sticky in regards to RVs, because then you can claim is is your home.
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the fourth amendment doesn't apply to your phone, then your phone can be looked at anytime by authorities with no need to cite probable cause, nor a warrant. Or am I missing something?
I don't think digital technology needs to apply here at all. Before there were phones, were authorities able to stop you and look through your personal papers or briefcase or other personal effects you were carrying, without probably cause or a warrant? I don't think. A phone isn't any different, it's just a lot smaller than a briefcase.
Good question. Hopefully someone is familiar with this scenario and could provide opinion on it.
Re: Cars and the Fourth Amendment
#10An old parking enforcement technique is to put a chalk mark on a car's tire: if you come back after two hours and see the same car with the marked tire you know that it has parked too long and can be ticketed. The 6th circuit recently ruled that is an unconstitutional search[1]: a government agent is physically intruding on a private area (your car) and searching it for information (how long it's been there). Neat st…
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…
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.)