Thread by @OrinKerr

TIRE-CHALKING JURISPRUDENCE UPDATE: CA9 rules 2-1 that tire chalking does not violate the 4A. Assuming it's a search, it falls within the special needs/administrative search exception. (Per Bress, w/ Bumatay dissenting). #N

🛞✏️🧵

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin… #N

First, a reminder: This twitter feed is dedicated to satisfying all of your tire-chalking jurisprudence needs. For prior tweets on the latest in tire-chalking and the 4th Amendment, see here: twitter.com/search?q=tire-…

Ok, on to the opinion. The CA9 argues that, even if tire-chalking is a search, it's okay under the special needs/admin search doctrine. A few key sections:

As tire-chalking jurisprudence afficionados know well, the CA6 recently held that tire-chalking does *not* satisfy that exception. Judge Bress explains the majorirty's disagreement with the CA6 here:

Wait, you're wondering, is there a split here? Could tire-chalking jurisprudence actually get to THE SUPREME COURT, where the Justices can finally weigh in on this foundational legal question? Well, hold on a bit.

First, SCOTUS hasn't taken a 4A case in two years, despite there being lots of splits. So don't get too excited. Second, there is a clear split on whether the admin exception doctrine applies, but not yet on the overall question of whether tire-chalking violates the 4A.

The CA6 has been taking on these issues piecemeal, and it hasn't directly answered if tire-chalking can violate the 4A. EDMich did in August, but not CA6, yet.

https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1430620377466642432

I have more thoughts on Judge Bumatay's originalist dissent — short version, I agree with Judge Bress's take on it — but I may blog that instead of tweeting about it.