Whether tire chalking violates the Fourth Amendment depends entirely on which federal circuit you live in. In 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Taylor v. City of Saginaw that a parking officer marking your tire with chalk to time how long you have been parked is a search under the Fourth Amendment, and one that requires a warrant.1Justia Law. Taylor v. Saginaw, No. 17-2126 (6th Cir. 2019) Three years later, the Ninth Circuit looked at the same practice and reached the opposite conclusion in Verdun v. City of San Diego, holding that chalking is a reasonable administrative search.2United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Verdun v. City of San Diego, 51 F.4th 1098 (9th Cir. 2022) The U.S. Supreme Court has not resolved the disagreement, so the answer for any given driver comes down to geography.
Where Tire Chalking Is Unconstitutional
In the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, suspicionless tire chalking violates the Fourth Amendment. The ruling came out of a lawsuit brought by Alison Taylor, a Saginaw, Michigan resident whose tires were chalked fifteen times by parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins between 2014 and 2017. Taylor received a ticket after each chalking and sued the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the practice was an unlawful search.1Justia Law. Taylor v. Saginaw, No. 17-2126 (6th Cir. 2019)
The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” and courts have long treated vehicles as “effects.”3Congress.gov. Constitution of the United States – Fourth Amendment The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning followed the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in United States v. Jones, which held that when the government physically intrudes on an “effect” for the purpose of gathering information, that intrusion is a search.4Justia. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) Chalking fit that description: an officer physically touches the car, and the entire point is to collect evidence for a ticket.
A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable unless a recognized exception applies. Saginaw tried three. The community caretaking exception, which allows limited searches to protect public safety, failed because Taylor’s car was lawfully parked and posed no hazard. The automobile exception, which permits warrantless vehicle searches supported by probable cause, failed because suspecting a car might eventually overstay a meter is nowhere near probable cause. And the administrative search exception, which the city raised on a second appeal, also failed.5Justia Law. Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 20-1588 (6th Cir. 2021) With no exception available, the practice was unconstitutional.
Where Tire Chalking Is Allowed
In the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and a few other jurisdictions, chalking is permitted. The court did not disagree with the Sixth Circuit’s premise that chalking is a physical intrusion. It assumed for the sake of argument that chalking counts as a search and then held it was a reasonable one under the administrative search exception.2United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Verdun v. City of San Diego, 51 F.4th 1098 (9th Cir. 2022)
The court weighed three factors. Parking management is a compelling municipal interest, separate from ordinary criminal enforcement. Chalking is narrowly tailored to that interest because it reveals only one fact — how long a car sat in one spot — and cannot be repurposed for criminal investigation. And the intrusion is minimal; the court described it as difficult to imagine a search less intrusive than dusting a bit of chalk on the outside of a tire parked in a public space. Requiring a warrant for each mark, the court added, would make routine parking enforcement impossible in a city of any size.
What About the Rest of the Country?
Outside the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, neither ruling is binding. Local courts are free to find either opinion more persuasive, and cities are left to make their own risk assessments. Many have quietly stopped chalking anyway, treating the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning as a caution even where it has no legal force.
A petition seeking Supreme Court review has been filed, but as of early 2026, the Court has not taken up the issue. Until it does, the law stays fractured along circuit lines.
What You Can Do if Your Tires Were Chalked
Your options depend on where the chalking happened.
If You Live in the Sixth Circuit
A ticket issued after your tires were chalked in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, or Tennessee rests on evidence gathered through what the Sixth Circuit has now ruled an unconstitutional search. Challenging the ticket in municipal court is the most direct route. The city has to justify the search, and every exception Saginaw raised has been rejected on appeal.
For a bigger remedy, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lets you sue a city for violating your constitutional rights, and successful plaintiffs can recover damages and attorney’s fees.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights Be realistic about the dollars, though. Reports indicate Saginaw was ordered to pay $1.00 per chalking incident. The practical value of a Section 1983 case in this context is usually the injunction — getting the city to stop — rather than a large check.
If You Live in the Ninth Circuit
Chalking has been expressly upheld. A constitutional challenge to a chalking-based ticket is unlikely to succeed. Non-constitutional defenses — the mark was misread, the time limit was misposted, the space was not what the officer claimed — remain available in the ordinary way through municipal court.
If You Live Elsewhere
Your outcome depends on which line of reasoning your local courts find more convincing. Preserving the Fourth Amendment argument, citing Taylor, and being ready for the city to counter with Verdun is the honest lay of the land.
Why Chalk Is Being Replaced Anyway
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling accelerated a shift that was already happening: cities moving away from chalk toward technology that never touches the car. The most common replacement is license plate recognition, in which cameras mounted on enforcement vehicles photograph plates, log timestamps and GPS coordinates, and flag vehicles that have not moved. Because no officer lays a finger on the vehicle, the physical-trespass theory that drove Taylor does not reach the practice.
Other cities use in-ground sensors, app-based payment systems that track paid time by license plate, and photograph-based virtual time stamps. All sidestep the constitutional problem the Sixth Circuit identified. They also raise separate questions about data retention and surveillance that courts are still working through, and those questions are legally distinct from the chalking issue.
Will the Supreme Court Settle It?
A clear circuit split is one of the strongest reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, and this one is squarely presented: two federal appeals courts, same facts, opposite results. Whether the Court takes it up is another matter, and so far it has not. If it does, the ruling will likely turn on whether the administrative search exception can stretch to cover routine, suspicionless physical contact with private property for revenue-related enforcement — the exact ground where the Sixth and Ninth Circuits parted ways. Until that happens, the answer for drivers stays local: check which circuit you are in, and read the ticket accordingly.