Page 39 - November December 2019 TPA Journal

party disputes that the City uses the chalk marks for performing ‘community-caretaker’ functions rather
the purpose of identifying vehicles that have been than traditional law-enforcement functions.” To
parked in the same location for a certain period of apply, this function must be “totally divorced from
time. That information is then used by the City to the detection, investigation, or acquisition of
issue citations. evidence relating to the violation of a criminal
statute.” We explained that “the community
Having answered the first question under our caretaker exception does not provide the
Fourth Amendment analysis, we now turn to government with refuge from the warrant
whether the search was reasonable. requirement except when delay is reasonably likely
to result in injury or ongoing harm to the
Taylor argues that the search was unreasonable
because the City fails to establish an exception to community at large.” Courts have applied the
community caretaker exception in narrow instances
the warrant requirement. Specifically, Taylor argues
when public safety is at risk. The City fails to carry
that the search at issue is not covered by the
its burden of establishing that the community
community caretaker exception and that the City
fails to establish that any other exception applies to caretaker exception applies in this instance. First,
their warrantless search. The City responds that, on these facts, the City fails to demonstrate how this
search bears a relation to public safety. The City
even if chalking is a search under Jones, the search
does not show that the location or length of time
was reasonable because there is a reduced
that Taylor’s vehicle was parked created the type of
expectation of privacy in an automobile. The City
further contends that the search was subject to the “hazard” or traffic impediment amounting to a
community caretaker exception. We disagree with public safety concern. Nor does the City
demonstrate that delaying a search would result in
the City.
“injury or ongoing harm to the community.” To the
“[W]e must begin with the basic rule that searches contrary, at the time of the search, Taylor’s vehicle
conducted outside the judicial process, without was lawfully parked in a proper parking location,
prior approval by [a] judge or magistrate, are per se imposing no safety risk whatsoever. Because the
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment— purpose of chalking is to raise revenue, and not to
subject only to a few specifically established and mitigate public hazard, the City was not acting in
well-delineated exceptions.” The government bears its “role as [a] community caretake[.]”
the burden of demonstrating an exception to the
warrant requirement. For the reasons above, we REVERSE the district
court’s order granting the City’s motion to dismiss
The automobile exception permits officers to search and REMAND for further proceedings consistent
a vehicle without a warrant if they have “probable with this order.
cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence
of a crime.” No such probable cause existed here. th
Thus, the automobile exception is inapplicable. Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 17-2126, 6 Circuit
Here, unlike Cardwell, the City commences its Court of Appeals, April 22, 2019.
search on vehicles that are parked legally, without
probable cause or even so much as “individualized
suspicion of wrongdoing”—the touchstone of the PEN. CODE SECTION 25.07 IS
reasonableness standard. CONSTITUTIONAL.

Next, the City attempts to seek refuge in the In this case, we consider the constitutionality of
community caretaker exception. This exception Penal Code Section 25.07(a)(2)(A). Under that
applies “whe[n] . . . government actors [are] statute, the State may prosecute an individual who

Nov./Dec. 2019 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 35