If, however, you are here for entertainment, allow me to recommend some of the more humorous or ridiculous stories this blog has shared:

Nothing but a Smile
The Vast Conspiracy, or, the Overzealous Officer
Death, Taxes, and Street Cleaning
The Reaper Defense
This Seems Like a Good Place to Stop…
Mailbag #1

Enjoy.

I was inside a Cafe in [city] and I had put in 1/2 on the meter that was parked right out front. The cafe I was at has full windows so I could clearly see the meter and my car from where I was sitting. As time rolled by my meter ran out so I went to ask the waitress for some change. She changed out my dollar and I went outside to pay just as the parking enforcement officer rolled up. He got out of his vehicle and I hustled and got the quarter into my meter. I thought I was good. He then proceeded to start typing something and I said I just paid the meter. He then said to me “okay, well I’m giving you a ticket anyways, I already started typing your license.” He then proceeded to finish whatever he was typing, put the ticket on my windshield and drove off without another word. My question is: Can I contest this ticket and win? I have witnesses inside the Cafe that said it may be worth fighting.

You were watching your parking meter, and you let it expire.  That’s a pretty silly mistake, don’t you think?  Most jurisdictions have very, very simple parking meter statutes that say something along the lines of, “It shall be unlawful for any person to park a vehicle in any parking meter space without immediately making a lawful payment at an applicable parking meter.”  Your vehicle was parked at an expired meter; although it may have been for a brief period of time, that does not excuse the violation.  You only get leniency for those few moments between initially parking your vehicle at an expired meter, and then getting out of your vehicle to put change into the meter.  Next.

I got a parking ticket for street cleaning. I admit that I shouldn’t have been parked there (unintentional mistake). My question: the officer wrote down my correct license plate #, but he/she wrote the wrong STATE and MONTH of my license plate (wrote [state 1] instead of [state 2]). Ticket issued in [state 2]. They also left the YEAR blank, and wrote “Can not read” for the VIN.  Am I off the hook?

The registration month/year and the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) are usually not required to be accurate for a parking ticket to be upheld.  Fortunately for you, however, the license plate state usually IS required to be accurate.  Since the officer incorrectly recorded your license plate’s state, this is probably grounds for a dismissal by itself.  If you contest this ticket, be sure to bring/send in copies of your [state 2] registration records, as well as photographs of the correct license plate on the ticketed vehicle.  Good luck.

That’s all for now.  Feel free to comment.

If you’re a reader of this blog, you know that photographic evidence proving the case is nothing new.  Here, the end of the gray cement and the start of the black asphalt is at exactly 18 inches, and because you can see a sliver of black beneath the tire, the car is clearly parked beyond that measurement.  I showed this to the man and he considered it for a moment before unleashing what must be called the most absurd defense I have ever heard.

“Well, the top of the tire is closer than 18 inches from the curb.”

I’m sorry, what?  The “top” of the tire?  I asked for clarification, and he explained that, in the picture, although the bottom of the tire (where the tire meets the street) might be more than 18 inches from the curb, the top of the tire is much closer, “less then ten inches,” from the curb.  I was fairly confused and asked for yet more clarification.  Because I cannot do his craziness justice with words, I will show another picture explaining what he meant:

That’s right–because the “top” of the tire is closer to the curb IN THE PICTURE, that means it must be closer than 18 inches.  Forget angle, forget perspective, forget geometry, that’s what this man was saying.  I calmly informed him that I was slightly offended that he would even proffer such foolishness to me.  He responded that I was yelling at him (I definitely was not) and that he would “report” me, whatever that means.  I gave him one more chance to explain this line of defense, thinking that I had surely misunderstood him, but alas, upon further review, I had actually understood him perfectly.  I asked him to leave.

Finding of Facts: When Respondent was shown the officer’s photograph at the hearing, Respondent employed a defense that can only be described as violative of geometry.  Respondent demanded that the top of the tire was somehow closer to the curb that the bottom of the tire because of the angle at which the officer’s photograph was taken.  In any event, the officer’s photograph is clear, and Respondent’s testimony does not have merit.  I therefore find Respondent Liable for this citation.

Stunning.  Dare I even ask what you think?

Take Our Poll

We live on [street 1] and [street 2], relatively quiet part of the neighborhood with few parking issues.  Today my wife was cited for a violation for parking in our own driveway with our VW golf. Yes, I have since learned that it is in fact illegal to park with any portion of a vehicle blocking the sidewalk (no matter how wide those sidewalks happen to be on [street 1]).  I’m not contesting these legal grounds and I suspect the officer has some photo evidence to prove there was an infraction.  I’m also sure there was abundance of space remaining for anyone, in any condition to pass behind the car safely. But that’s not a legal argument I’m expecting to win.

I’m curious if there’s any leeway for humanity in this citation? Our own driveway where we have lived for 4 years, in a house we own, and frankly have parked in somewhat similar fashion for a large portion of it.  We pull into our garage every night.  But with two children under 3, loading and unloading after school is a bit of a production.  To recieve a parking ticket at 5:09 pm seems like someone has an axe to grind.  But I leave the parking karma gods to deal with whomever saw fit to register a complaint.

So here go the honest questions:
Is any reason for me to appeal this?  If so, any compelling reason other than common decency?
As the homeowner do I have any right to a “warning” citation?
Are these judgement calls on the officers part entirely?
In defense of myself do I have right to inquire about the nature of the complaint?
Are we better off parking parallel in front of the driveway on the street (certainly not safer)?
Should I abandon this inquiry and consider us lucky that we haven’t been ticketed previously?

I’m afraid you aren’t going to like what I have to say.  First, you have simply no grounds upon which to appeal this citation.  The sidewalks are city property, and as such, obstructing them in any way is a violation.  Your vehicle represented a hazard to pedestrians (and if this seems far-fetched, think of those in wheelchairs, or others with difficulty getting around), and you were properly cited.  If your driveway is long enough to accommodate a vehicle, you should be using it.  If it is not, you have a duty to pull into your garage.

Onto your other questions.  No one, homeowners or otherwise, have a right to a warning.  I am unsure exactly what you mean by “judgment calls,” because in essence, most parking tickets are judgment calls.  I am also unsure exactly what you mean when you ask if you have a right to inquire about the nature of the complaint; the law was violated, and that is why you were cited.  If you are wondering if a fellow citizen complained about the offending vehicle, cities do not release that information for parking ticket hearings.  Concerning parking in the future, you cannot block your own driveway, as this is also illegal.  I would advise, again, pulling all the way into your driveway, or using your garage.  If neither suffices, yes, park on the street.  Finally, yes, I would save yourself time and energy with this potential appeal.  If you’ve been blocking the sidewalk for some time, consider yourself fortunate that you have not been ticketed before.  Alright, next email.

I was issued a parking ticket last Wednesday in downtown [city]. It was Wednesday [date] on [street]. I was waiting on my car for my mom to finish her test at the near by office, and I parked my car on the street with meter, and I moved to the passenger seat so I can get some rest while waiting for her. As the sun rise up more, I used my jacket to cover the front part of my windshield, and it was around 10:10 AM. not after a while, there was a pedestrian passing by my car, and gestured (pointing) the front of my car, which I thought he was reminding me that my meter has expired.. so I was reaching to my driver’s seat to get more quarters to put in the meter. Then, I found out that the officer was standing next to my car (on the driver’s side), issuing the ticket. So I lowered my window, and she was saying that I am in violation for parking on the street, where there will be street cleaning from the time frame 10AM to 1PM on Wednesday, and she said, if she saw me on my car, she would have just tell me to move my vehicle and not issuing the ticket. But I explained to her I was on my car the whole entire time, but she argued that I was on the passenger side and the jacket blocked everything and she did not see me, so she gave me the ticket anyway.
Do you think is there any chance for me to contest/ appeal for the ticket..?  From the place where I parked, I didn’t see any signs saying “no parking” .. until I drove down the street THEN I saw a small sign saying no parking on Wednesday from 10 to 1 for street cleaning, on top of “2 hour parking from _am to _pm”.

I’ve reviewed what you’ve said, and I conclude that if you contest this parking ticket, you will likely lose unless you can prove that the signs were insufficient.  I will explain.  Let’s first assume the signs are sufficient.  If this is the case, you clearly parked your care in violation of the street cleaning sign.  Whether or not you were in the car is irrelevant; the car was parked, and you weren’t even in the driver’s seat.  Street cleaning began at 10:00AM and lasted until 1:00PM; you parked you car at 10:10AM, after street cleaning began.  Parking during street cleaning is illegal, and nothing you’ve said shields you from liability.

There is one potential save for you here.  [City] requires that street cleaning signs be posted at the start of any block in which they are posted.  They can also be posted in the middle and at the end of blocks, but there must be a sign at the start of the block.  Go back to [street] and see if there is a street cleaning sign at the start of the block where you were parked.  If there isn’t, take many pictures of this.  You will win your appeal based on insufficient signage.  If there is, you will likely lose any appeal.

That’s all for now.  Feel free to comment.

A man wrote in to contest a front yard ticket; thankfully, he was not making a claim against the legality of the law itself (after all, as a lowly parking ticket appeals adjudicator, I am powerless to change the law).  Instead, his written statement forcefully declared that his vehicle’s passenger-side tires were only “a couple of inches” onto his front lawn, and this was necessitated by the coming and going of a moving truck that needed access to his driveway.  He went on to rail against the unfairness of what he termed a “generalized violation,” whatever that means.  Now, remember the crux of his testimony: that his car’s tires were only barely encroaching into his front yard.  Photographs are always helpful in cases like these, and thankfully the traffic officer took one.

I just might need to buy this man a ruler.  You can probably guess what the decision said.

Finding of Facts: Respondent’s vehicle was almost entirely in his front yard.  The photograph taken by the traffic officer makes this clear and obvious.  Respondent’s claim of “a couple of inches” is patently false.  Well over half the vehicle was parked in the front yard, and Respondent was properly cited.  I therefore find Respondent Liable for this citation.

When cases are this easy, it’s a wonderful thing.  What do you think?

The woman in this next case came to her hearing already flustered.  She explained that she drops her son off in front of his high school every day without issue, except one particular day that was no different from the rest.  The curb in front of the son’s school, you see, is a no-parking zone.  Given this fact, it may seem strange that the woman was so upset; however, this jurisdiction differentiates between no-parking zones and no-stopping zones.  Here, parking is defined as the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers.  Needlessly confusing statutory language aside, this means that you can stop your car in a no-parking zone and let your passengers out without breaking the law, but you cannot do this in a no-stopping zone.  To alleviate confusion, I’ll repeat the basic facts: she was stopped (but not parked) in a no-parking zone to let her son out.

There was no dispute that curb is a no-parking zone, rather than a no-stopping zone.  The ticket itself said as much.  I asked the woman if perhaps she got out of the vehicle and walked her son into school the day the ticket was issued.  She said she never does that, and that she has never gotten out of her car once while dropping her son off.  I could tell that this was becoming a typical he-said/she-said sort of hearing until I learned that the traffic officer had taken a photograph at the scene of the ticket.

As you can see, the wheels are turned toward the road, the left turn signal is blinking, and (though it’s difficult to tell from this sizing) the woman is behind the wheel of the car.  This is not a parked car.  I had enough to make a ruling.

Finding of Facts: Upon reviewing the officer’s photograph, I do not understand why the citation was issued.  The photograph shows Respondent sitting in the vehicle’s driver seat, with the vehicle’s wheels turned in an obvious attempt to leave, and with the left-hand turn signal flickering.  This vehicle is not a parked vehicle; it is a standing vehicle.  I therefore find that this citation was issued in error, and I find Respondent Not Liable for this citation.

If the officer does not know the statutory definition of “parking,” he should probably not be issuing parking tickets.  This is the sort of mess I really shouldn’t have to clean up.  Anyway, what do you think?

My sister received an “Official Courtesy Notice Unpaid Parking Citation(s)” from [City 1] where we have never heard or been to and a good six to eight hours drive away.  We orginially thought this notice is fake until a quick check on the web site found out there’re many small cities in [State] have actually using [website] to do city’s work.  Anyway, what we don’t understand is how did she got a parking citation at [time] on [date].  She’s dumfounded because she hasn’t been to the [City 1] metropolitan area for the last seven or eight years and wasn’t anywere near [City 1] at the time of citation was made.  Nor was the vehicle used or lend to by someone at the time.  Obviously, she does not have the original parking ticket/citation and not knowing about the citation till this notice; nine months later.  No, she have not moved since 1998 and live at the same address for the last eleven years.  She’s going to appeal this unfounded citation against her.

How would you preside over this case?  Will my sister  be held liable even if she can prove she was working in [City 2] at the time of citation?  Or will she needs additional evidence to prove otherwise?

IMHO, it’s either a genuine error by the city or this is a case a city that’s desperate to add extra  revenues but this is just absolutely ridiculous.  $45.00 is not a big amount but paying for something that she didn’t do is just unfair and wrong.

I have presided over this sort of case before, and I can assure you that there is no underlying scheme by the city to make extra revenue.  There are generally two reasons for a mistake like this: either the traffic officer made a mistake in writing down the license plate he or she observed, or the vehicle that was ticketed possessed a phony license plate that is identical to your sister’s.  Fortunately, this is a winnable case.

First, your sister should be able to prove that she was working in [City 2] at the time the ticket was issued.  Official records from her employer should suffice.  Second, you should use a printout from Google Maps or some similar mapping program to display just how far [City 1] is from [City 2].  Third, and this is very critical, ask for a copy of the ticket.  On the ticket, the officer is required to write down the make of the vehicle, the vehicle type (passenger, pickup, van, etc.), and the registration month.  There is a very good chance that all three of those fields will be different from your sister’s vehicle.  But even on the chance that two of them are the same (for instance, there are a lot of Honda passenger cars out there), there is only a 1 in 12 chance that the two vehicles will have the same registration month.  You must point out any discrepancies like this to the person presiding over your appeal.

If you can put those three points together when making your case, you can reasonably expect a refund.  Good luck.  Alright, let’s do another.

I live in [City] and we have 3-hr parking signs in [Area].  When I parked my car, I noticed the meter maid righting down my information on when I parked, etc.  I went to an exhibit in the park and came back 15-minutes before expiration.  I wanted to spend more time with my friend (just 30 minutes), so we decided to look for another parking spot, since my 3-hr space expired.  I could not find any open spaces, so i returned to the original location.  A space further back (2-3 cars back) from my original spot was open.  I explained, “What should I do if there is no parking in [Area], except for my original location?”

The meter maid tickted me thinking I did not move my car after 3-hrs, but if she chalked my tires, she would have known I actually moved my car.  I protested the ticket through Admin. Review.  They responded saying that if I did not move my car 1-block away (after looking for another spot in [Area]), my car is deemed stationary.  They suggested I park on a different block, if this ever happened to me again, so the meter maid won’t ticket me. Well, if I knew about this rule I would have not risked getting a ticket. Typically in [City], the meter maid chalk marks your tire to see if you moved your car.

My question is…should I request for an In-Person Administrative Hearing?  In the past 10 years of driving, I have never read about this rule.  So say I go shopping and I use a 1-hr meter.  I return and notice an available “metered” parking spot 2 cars away.  If I park there, the meter maid has a right to ticket me, because I didn’t park 1-block away from the original meter?  (I’ve done this before and have never been ticketed.)  It’s just irritating how there are codes they didn’t explain in driving school, but you receive a ticket for it.  I’ve been taught about being fined for red, yellow and white zones, but never about this rule.  Would it be worth seeing them in person and protesting, or should I just pay it and take it as a lesson for next time?

This was the ruling verbiage: Your vehilce ws cited for parking in excess of the posted time limit. The [City] Transportation Code 1002 (formerly TC 64) states “any vehicle moved a distance of not more than one block during the limited parking period shall be deemed to have remained stationary”.  If you leave a restricted area and later return to it, you ar advised to park in a different block to avoid being citied for overtime parking.

If you request an administrative hearing, you’re going to lose, and here’s why.  Section 1002 of the the [City] Transportation Code explicitly says that you have to move your vehicle at least one block away.  This is not simply some policy the local department of transportation has cooked up; the law is literally on the books.  Since driving is a privilege, and not a right, the burden is on you (the citizen) to learn and follow all traffic laws in any municipality where you will be driving.  These laws are freely accessible on the internet, or in your local library.  Ignorance is therefore no excuse.

What I’ve said above is exactly what the administrative hearing adjudicator would have told you.  Chalk markings don’t seem to be required by the law, so the lack thereof won’t be a successful defense.  Saying that you’ve done this before and haven’t been ticketed for it also won’t be successful, because inconsistent enforcement is not considered a valid defense either.  Save yourself the time and trouble of a live hearing, and use this incident as a learning experience for next time.

A woman wrote in to contest a no-stopping zone ticket during rush hour (beginning at 4pm), an infraction that is known in some jurisdictions as an anti-gridlock violation.  Her defense was that she was in the far right lane, adjacent to the curb, when two vehicles parked in front of her, forcing her to stop until she could merge to the left.  She ended her written statement with, “I was not parked period.”  Alright then, not an unreasonable defense, and it is certainly plausible that she is telling the truth.  For his part, the traffic officer noted that the vehicle was not only stopped, but parked for fifteen (15) minutes.  Fortunately, the traffic officer took a number of photographs when issuing this ticket.  Let’s take a look.

This first picture (I’ve blacked out the license plate for privacy reasons) actually seems to lend credence to the woman’s claim.  There is a vehicle parked in front of hers, and her wheels are turned to the left in an apparent attempt to merge into the next lane.  So far, she’s winning this appeal.  Onto the next pictures.

And…

Please note the times printed on all three of these photographs.  The first photograph was taken at 4:37 and 28 seconds.  The officer was standing not far from the vehicle, saw that it had stopped, and snapped a quick photograph.  This officer was actually being kind and did not issue the ticket right away.  Instead, he returned to his vehicle across the street and waited.  The second photograph was taken at 4:51 and 19 seconds, fourteen (14) minutes later, and clearly shows the woman returning to her vehicle (ostensibly from the adjacent bank).  The third photograph was taken at 4:51 and 53 seconds and shows the woman now in her vehicle, prepared to drive away.

As you can surely surmise, before you can exit the vehicle you are driving and enter a nearby bank, you must first park your vehicle.  And when a vehicle is parked, we can agree that it is stopped.  So much for her claim that she was “not parked period.

Finding of Facts: Respondent very much was parked, period.  The photographs taken by the traffic officer showed Respondent’s vehicle parked at 4:37PM, at which point Respondent exited the vehicle.  The vehicle remained parked until 4:51PM, at which point Respondent returned to the vehicle and departed. In that span of fourteen (14) minutes, Respondent’s vehicle was parked unattended and, what’s more, there were no vehicles in front of hers, as she claimed.  I therefore find Respondent Liable for this citation.  Respondent is warned against making this sort of fabricated case in the future.

Just a shame.  What do you think?

A man in his thirties came before me to contest a relatively general “parking prohibited” ticket he had received for cramming his motorcycle into a demarcated parking meter space that was already occupied by a normal-sized car.  This space, and many others like it, is marked off by two painted brackets a little more than a car’s width away from the curb.  The idea is to park within these brackets; I’m sure many of you have seen this.

Anyway, the rather combative man demanded to know what law he had broken by doing this, and I told him that the city’s laws clearly define parking meters and their adjacent spaces as intended for one vehicle, and not two.  I further explained that piggybacking into a paid-for metered space violates an implied contact between the car owner and the city: by putting money into the meter, the car owner is paying the city for sole temporary occupancy of the metered space by his or her vehicle.

Unsatisfied with this answer but understanding it to be a closed avenue, the man then launched an impassioned defense of the “rights” of motorcyclists to park their vehicles virtually wherever they please, claiming that motorcycle owners should be give “different treatment” because they purchase such small and narrow vehicles that can fit into many places.  I was unmoved.  The man then made an economic argument, confidently stating that the health of local businesses is “directly affected” by this alleged right of motorcycles to park anywhere, since this allows the owners of said motorcycles to patronize adjacent shops more easily.

I will admit that I was rather fascinated by how this man saw motorcycle ownership as some sort of VIP access to the city’s many curbside nooks and crevices.  In the end, though, I simply told him that his arguments were much sound and fury signifying nothing, found him Liable for the ticket, and sent him on his lane-splitting way.  What do you think?

The time of the sun’s setting on a given day is an agreed-upon fact.  Sunsets are accurately predicted years into the future without issue; this is because we know a great deal about the Earth’s rotation, and have a precise formula for deriving the moment sunrise and sunset will occur.  Of course, when parking tickets are involved, science is thrown out the window.

A man sent in a written declaration contesting a ticket he received for parking after sunset in a certain city-owned parking lot.  I believe many municipalities have rules like this for parking lots adjacent to parks, beaches, and the like.  The man was aware of this restriction when he parked, but he stated that he was unaware of when sunset was to occur on the cited day, and therefore had no way of complying with the restriction.  In fact, in the man’s opinion, “it was still light out” when he found the ticket on his car’s windshield.  The traffic officer who wrote the ticket had specifically noted that the ticket was not issued until ten minutes after the sun had set.  This decision was fairly simple.

Finding of Facts: According to the Old Farmer’s Almanac, the sun set at 7:21PM on the cited day in [city].  This is exactly thirty (30) minutes before Respondent was cited.  Respondent should have noticed that the sun had set–darkness is usually a giveaway–and he should have moved his vehicle.  I therefore find Respondent Liable for this citation.

Ah, employing science to do my job for me is a wonderful thing.  In all seriousness though, the sky does not remain lit half an hour after sunset, and this fellow’s argument was fairly laughable.  Anyway, what do you think?