I am rarely rendered speechless.  This holds especially true in live hearings, as I am expected to actively engage the citizen, the traffic officer (when present), and any witnesses so that we may get to the bottom of the pertinent issues.  There is always the odd exception, however.  A man, probably in his 30s, came for his scheduled hearing to contest the parking ticket he had received for an expired parking meter.  Over 90% of the time, the defense for this will be, “the meter was broken,” and I am usually generous with this sort of case.  If the meter’s repair history shows many complaints and/or repairs, I will often give the citizen the benefit of the doubt and issue a refund.  This time was different.

The man was sworn in, and his testimony was this: he parked at the meter, he took some change from his change dish with the intention of putting it into the meter, exited his vehicle, forgot to put the change into the meter, and went about his business.  He then fell silent and looked at me, apparently done testifying.  Assuming I had missed something, I asked him if, perhaps, the meter was broken, or if there was some strange circumstance that had arisen.  No, he said.  He just meant to put money in the meter and forgot.  I considered whether I was being “Punk’d” or something similar, but the man seemed a bit too timid to be trying anything like that.  He offered a nervous smile as I stared blankly at him.  The stare continued for some time; I was at a loss for words.

I asked for some clarification.  “Just so I’m clear, you meant to put money in the meter, but you forgot.  And when you returned to your car, you had a ticket on your windshield because the meter was expired.  Now you want a refund.  Is that right?”  Yes, that was right.  He really did want a refund simply because he meant to do something but forgot.  I thanked him and told him the decision would be mailed to him.

Finding of Facts: Respondent’s alleged intent is completely irrelevant in this instance.  Respondent parked at an expired meter and did not put money into it.  That is the end of the matter.  I find Respondent Liable.

I imagine that few parking tickets would be upheld if “I meant to follow the law, I just forgot” was an acceptable defense to liability.  This would lead to a complete breakdown of street enforcement and, perhaps, the decline of civilization.  But that’s conjecture for another day.  What do you think of the outcome here?

Advertisement