{"id":49484,"date":"2021-08-26T06:18:02","date_gmt":"2021-08-26T11:18:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49484"},"modified":"2021-08-26T06:18:02","modified_gmt":"2021-08-26T11:18:02","slug":"ca6-parking-enforcement-chalking-not-a-valid-administrative-search-but-qi-immunity-applies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49484","title":{"rendered":"CA6: Parking enforcement chalking not a valid administrative search but QI immunity applies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>\u201cThe City of Saginaw routinely chalked car tires to enforce its parking regulations. In our prior opinion, we held that doing so is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, and that \u2018based on the pleadings stage of this litigation, \u2026 two exceptions to the warrant requirement\u2014the \u201ccommunity caretaking\u201d exception, and the motor-vehicle exception\u2014do not apply here.\u2019 Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 922 F.3d 328, 336 (6th Cir. 2019) (Taylor I). However, we left for another day whether the search could be justified by \u2018some other exception\u2019 to the warrant requirement. Id. [\u00b6] We consider one of those other exceptions today\u2014specifically, whether suspicionless tire chalking constitutes a valid administrative search. Because we conclude that it does not, we reverse the district court&#8217;s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. But because we conclude that the alleged unconstitutionality of suspicionless tire chalking was not clearly established, the City&#8217;s parking officer, defendant Tabitha Hoskins, is entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/21a0194p-06.pdf\">Taylor v. City of Saginaw<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 25573 (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2021).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cThe City of Saginaw routinely chalked car tires to enforce its parking regulations. In our prior opinion, we held that doing so is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, and that \u2018based on the pleadings stage of this litigation, \u2026 &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49484\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49484","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-administrative-search","category-qualified-immunity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49484","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=49484"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49484\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49485,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49484\/revisions\/49485"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=49484"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=49484"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=49484"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}