The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled Tuesday that city parking violation officers’ chalking of parked vehicles violates the Fourth Amendment.

In the event of a parking violation, parking officers acting on behalf of the city of Saginaw, Michigan, would mark the tires of parked civilian cars. The officers would then monitor the car while tracking the length of time the vehicle remained parked. If the parking meter expired and the vehicle remained, the officers would issue a parking ticket.

This practice led plaintiff to sue the city of Saginaw. Plaintiff had been issued parking citations a total of 15 times. She sued the city under 42 USC § 1983, alleging violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She argued the officers’ chalking of her tires constituted an unconstitutional search without her consent.

The Sixth Circuit conducted its analysis based on two questions: 1) does the nature of the government entity’s action(s) constitute a search, and 2) was said search reasonable in nature?

Drawing from a combination of Supreme Court Fourth Amendment precedent, and from the Second Restatement of Torts § 217, the Sixth Circuit concluded the officers’ actions were intrusive and constituted a search upon the plaintiff’s vehicle. The Sixth Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s reasoning that the city’s chalking was justified due to a reduced expectation of privacy, thanks to what is known as the “automobile exception.” The Sixth Circuit noted the “automobile exception” is applicable only when there is probable cause for law enforcement to believe the vehicle might contain evidence of a crime. The appeals curt noted there was no such situation present.

The city of Saginaw attempted to argue that a warrant to justify its officer’s chalking was not required due to something known as the “community caretaker exemption.” The Sixth Circuit disagreed. The court noted that the “community caretaker exemption” applies in exigent circumstances when a matter of public safety is at stake, and the actions made by law enforcement officers are not part of the “detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence.” The court noted the city’s motive to chalk-then-ticket was more motivated by raising revenue than in the interest of public safety.