City Cut the Lock on His Private Shed
For over thirty years, the small shed in the backyard had remained untouched. Inside, shielded from the elements and the eyes of the world, sat a car that hadn’t seen the open road since the early 90s. To the owner, it was a piece of personal history, a quiet relic of the past.
But to the city, it was “Section 42, Paragraph B”—and they were willing to break a lock to prove it.
The Shock of the Empty Shed
The day started like any other for the homeowner. After returning from a routine doctor’s appointment, he walked toward his backyard. He stopped dead in his tracks. The heavy-duty deadbolt on his private shed hadn’t just been opened—it had been sheared off.
He rushed inside, fearing the worst. The space where his car had sat for decades was empty. “I panicked,” he later recounted. “I thought I’d been robbed. You don’t expect your own city to be the one cutting your locks.”
The City’s Defense: “A Public Nuisance”
When the case reached the courtroom, the city’s representatives were unapologetic. They pointed to the municipal code with bureaucratic confidence. Their argument was built on two main points:
Registration: The vehicle hadn’t been registered since 1992 or 1993.
The Nuisance Clause: Under Section 42, any unlicensed or inoperable vehicle is classified as a “public nuisance,” regardless of whether it’s sitting in a driveway or tucked inside a private building.
To the city, the shed was irrelevant. The car was a violation, and they were simply “abating” the problem.
The Judge’s Line in the Sand
The atmosphere in the courtroom shifted when the Judge began to speak. He wasn’t interested in the city’s definition of a “nuisance.” He was interested in a much older, much higher law: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Judge leaned forward, his voice calm but sharp. “I am trying to find where the code allows the city to cut a lock on a private structure without a warrant,” he challenged the city’s legal team.
The silence that followed was deafening. The city had ignored the most basic protection of a citizen: the right to be secure in their persons, houses, and property against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Verdict: A Deadline for Justice
The Judge didn’t just rule against the city; he issued a direct command. He made it clear that a municipal code does not—and can never—override the Constitution.
“That is a Fourth Amendment violation. You will have that car returned to that shed by 5:00 today.”
This case serves as a powerful reminder of the boundaries of government power. It isn’t just about an old car in a shed; it’s about the sanctity of private property. The city learned a hard lesson that day: you might be able to regulate a “nuisance,” but you cannot ignore the law to do it.
Sometimes, the strongest bolt on a shed door isn’t the metal one—it’s the Bill of Rights.