Parking ticket overnight with no signs posted in Claremont

[Hapaben]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I received a parking citation in Claremont, CA at 500 N. Mills Ave. The violation states that there is 1-hour parking between 2am - 6am. The violation code is 10.32.210.

I parked my vehicle overnight during Parent's Weekend at Claremont McKenna College. There were other vehicles parked on the street and there were NO SIGNS ANYWHERE on the entire street of N. Mills Ave. stating the 1-hour parking restriction between 2am - 6am.

After some research, I found that there is a law stating this restriction on the City of Claremont website. However, since I am from out of town (Northern California), and was visiting campus, and there were NO SIGNS posted stating this restriction, is there a way for me to appeal this ticket successfully?

Below is the law corresponding to code 10.32.210 from the City of Claremont website:

"Section 10.32.210 of the Claremont Municipal Code prohibits parking any vehicle on a City street for more than one hour between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. There are a variety of reasons for the ordinance, but some major considerations are:

1. Street cleaning. Having vehicles off the streets at night ensures that most streets will be clear for the street sweeping trucks in the morning.
2. Beautification. Requiring vehicles to be parked off the streets makes the City a more attractive place to live.
3. Lower crime. Vehicles parked on the street at night can be targets for theft and vandalism. Having most of them off the street also helps patrol officers see which ones might not belong in the area.

Sometimes someone has to have his or her car on the street overnight. Some of the reasons include the car has broken down, the driveway is being re-paved, the driver is a care provider, or you have out of town guests. For these, and other reasons, an exemption process is available.

Thank you for your help.

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I received a parking citation in Claremont, CA at 500 N. Mills Ave. The violation states that there is 1-hour parking between 2am - 6am. The violation code is 10.32.210.

I parked my vehicle overnight during Parent's Weekend at Claremont McKenna College. There were other vehicles parked on the street and there were NO SIGNS ANYWHERE on the entire street of N. Mills Ave. stating the 1-hour parking restriction between 2am - 6am.

After some research, I found that there is a law stating this restriction on the City of Claremont website. However, since I am from out of town (Northern California), and was visiting campus, and there were NO SIGNS posted stating this restriction, is there a way for me to appeal this ticket successfully?

Below is the law corresponding to code 10.32.210 from the City of Claremont website:

"Section 10.32.210 of the Claremont Municipal Code prohibits parking any vehicle on a City street for more than one hour between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. There are a variety of reasons for the ordinance, but some major considerations are:

1. Street cleaning. Having vehicles off the streets at night ensures that most streets will be clear for the street sweeping trucks in the morning.
2. Beautification. Requiring vehicles to be parked off the streets makes the City a more attractive place to live.
3. Lower crime. Vehicles parked on the street at night can be targets for theft and vandalism. Having most of them off the street also helps patrol officers see which ones might not belong in the area.

Sometimes someone has to have his or her car on the street overnight. Some of the reasons include the car has broken down, the driveway is being re-paved, the driver is a care provider, or you have out of town guests. For these, and other reasons, an exemption process is available.

Thank you for your help.

You can appeal using the procedure listed on the ticket, however, I don't feel you will be successful. It can't hurt to try!

[Hapaben]

Thanks for your help.

What will give my appeal the best chances of success? What sorts of evidence should I include?

Is what I included above a legitimate appeal/case or do I need more evidence (i.e. photos, further explanation)?

Thanks.

[Zigner]

Thanks for your help.

What will give my appeal the best chances of success? What sorts of evidence should I include?

Is what I included above a legitimate appeal/case or do I need more evidence (i.e. photos, further explanation)?

Thanks.

The ticket was valid. The law is no parking between 2-6 am. You parked during the period of 2-6 am. Your "appeal" is based on you being from out of town and being totally ignorant of the law. I would be willing to bet that there are signs upon entering the city stating that no overnight parking is allowed, so you DID have notice though.

You are basically begging for leniency.

[Hapaben]

Thanks for your response Zigner.

The law is actually no parking for more than one hour between 2am - 6am.

I realize that my appeal currently is asking for lenience based on ignorance of the law, as a visitor to the city of Claremont.

However, there were no signs visible anywhere near the grey curb where I parked (or anywhere on the entire length of N Mills Ave for that matter) regarding parking restrictions. Furthermore, I am not aware of any signs posted at the entrance to the city of Claremont itself.

Doesn't the police department have a duty to post signs making the public aware of parking laws on specific streets? This just seems like a logical thing for the police department to do, especially for visitors to the town. I recognize that the police department can't post signs everywhere regarding every single law. However, having posted signs regarding parking restrictions for a specific time period on a specific street, seems like a fair/reasonable right for a citizen to hold, especially one that pays taxes in the state of California.

Claremont is part of the County of Los Angeles. I looked for laws requiring signs to be posted regarding parking restrictions on the County of Los Angeles and State of California websites, but couldn't find any.

Any thoughts? Perhaps a specific law you could refer me to that requires signs to be posted regarding parking restrictions/enforcement?

Thanks for your time.

[bam755]

This same EXACT thing just happened to me. I completely agree with you. I think that most drivers have a reasonable expectation to be made aware of parking restrictions for a specific street. The other thing that doesn't make sense is that some streets in Claremont have signs saying that there is no parking on that particular street over 1 hour from 2 AM to 6AM while other streets do not, and yet the law applies to ALL streets in Claremont. It's clearly unreasonable, but obviously the city makes a lot of revenue from tricking people into parking on streets where there are no signs posted...

[bam755]

By the way, if you want specific case law:
HOMES ON WHEELS v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

[bam755]

Here is one other person's argument that I find to be entirely reasonable...

I don't believe anyone should be punished for violating a local parking ordinance without having received prior fair warning. The adequate posting of warning signs generally satisfies such fair warning. However, it is my belief that the inconspicuous posting of signs at merely city entrances (assuming we're not talking about a gated community) does NOT constitute adequate warning to those charged of violating local parking time restricted parking ordinances. I would argue that, to punish someone under such circumstances, especially a visiting non-resident motorist of the city in question, violates state, federal, and constitutional law.

The one case on point I've found to support this proposition, which seems very much related to the issue raised by the person who originally addressed this topic, is: Homes on Wheels v. City of Santa Barbara (2004), 119 Cal. App.4th 1173, 1179-1180. Also, consider the following excerpt of my own argument on the subject matter:

It is for the very reason that “ignorance of the law is not a defense” that the very integrity of our freedom as citizens requires fair warning of the law before we may be held accountable and punished under its commands. (Lanzetta v. New Jersey (1939), 306 U.S. 451, 453) As the U.S. Supreme Court more eloquently expressed in Grayned (Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104, 108) :

“…because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning… if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.”

Vague laws also provide opportunity for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because those who apply the laws have no clear and explicit standards to guide them. (Karlan v. Cincinnati ( 1971), 416 U.S. 924, 925 (citing Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 )

For those interested, I am personally taking up this battle in the California Court of Appeal on the same issue.

This writing represents my personal opinions on the subject matter and is intended for public interest/ general purposes only. By no means should this post be construed as legal advice or an offer of representation by me. Nonetheless, your comments or inquiries are welcome.

[Sol4justice]

For those who disagree with the practice of issuing parking tickets under time restricted parking ordinance without posting warning signs on such ordinances in or around the affected areas of enforcement, here is a little follow up on an earlier post of mine, which was cited by and republished by Bam755:

The appeal I've been handling for the past couple of years has finally been argued and submitted to the California Court of Appeal Second App. District (on April 1, 2011), regarding the matter of signage requirements affecting time restricted parking ordinances. A decision should be made sometime within the next 90 days, assuming the Court will rule on the merits of the case.

I am currently willing to at least briefly talk to anyone else who might have been ticketed by a municipality where no signs were posted, as described in the Homes case.

Below are a few additional points I'll share regarding some legal points to potentially raise under your Parking Citation Appeal on these matters:

Parking Citation Appeals are designated as "limited civil cases" (CVC 40230(a).) A court ruling under a limited civil case has extremely limited powers in equity, and and similarly limited powers to grant declaratory relief. If one disputes the legality of "any...municipal fine," the matter is expressly excluded from being a limited civil case. (CCP 86(a)(1).) Hence, one arguably has a right to demand that the Parking Appeal be transferred to the unlimited civil division where she may raise legal challenges regarding the fine issued against her.

Otherwise, the limited civil Parking Appeal judge arguably has no jurisdiction to affirm a municipal parking fine against someone who raises purely legal challenges (i.e. on notice grounds). Furthermore, under CCP 528a, one has the right to challenge the legality of any municipal fine, where she has personally paid taxes to the municipality and should therefore have taxpayer standing to challenge the unconstitutional or illegal ticking practice by use of tax expenditures. This argument follows: as California drivers, we all pay vehicle registration, license fees and taxes, public transportation fees, etc., which directly go to each municipality to legitimately regulate California public roads. Such public roads subject to municipal regulation under State authority, legally belong to the people and the State of California, not any particular municipality.

This writing represents my personal opinions on the subject matter and is intended for public interest/ general purposes only. By no means should this post be construed as legal advice nor an offer of representation by me. Nonetheless, your comments or inquiries are welcome.

[musicman654321]

They can likely just post signs on the roads coming into the city.

[BlunterII]

To the OP:

I received a parking citation in Claremont, CA at 500 N. Mills Ave. The violation states that there is 1-hour parking between 2am - 6am. The violation code is 10.32.210.

I parked my vehicle overnight during Parent's Weekend at Claremont McKenna College. There were other vehicles parked on the street and there were NO SIGNS ANYWHERE on the entire street of N. Mills Ave. stating the 1-hour parking restriction between 2am - 6am.

For their implementation most local ordinances rely on various provisions and definitions in the Vehicle code.
Judging from your post it could be CVC 22507.6 and CVC 22507.5
___________________________________


Pursuant to CVC 22507.6 there are certain requirements for the street sweeping signs to be legally enforceable:
They should be:

- compliant with California standarts for street and highway signs
(check 2010 - MUTCD, especially the table around page 211, see URL below)
- at each entrance to the street (could be your case)
- in a conspicuous place (could be your case)
- notice not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size
- with lettering not less than one inch in height
- setting forth the day or days and hours parking is prohibited

Relevant excerpt from CVC 22507.6
No such ordinance or resolution shall be effective until the street
or highway, or portion thereof, has been sign-posted in accordance
with the uniform standards and specifications of the Department of
Transportation, or local authorities have caused to be posted in a
conspicuous place at each entrance to the street a notice not less
than 17 inches by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one
inch in height, setting forth the day or days and hours parking is
prohibited. As used in this section, "entrance" means the
intersection of any street or streets comprising an area of
restricted parking for street-sweeping purposes on the same day or
days and hours with another street or highway not subject to such a
parking restriction, or subject to parking restrictions on different
days and hours.

___________________________________

California Department of Transportation, MUTCD URL below
[url]=http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2010.htm]California MUTCD 2010[/url]

Page 152 of 2010 MUTCD deals with general guidlines in regards
to R30C and R30D signs (the ones you seem to be referring to)

"The No Parking 2AM TO 6AM EXCEPT BY PERMIT (R30C(CA))or
No Parking 2AM TO 6 AM CITYWIDE EXCEPT BY PERMIT (R30D(CA)
sign shall be used to inform motorists of a parking prohibition
between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. Refer to CVC 22507.5.
Guidance:
When used, the R30D(CA) sign should be posted below
the City Limit (G9-5(CA)) sign or downstream from a
freeway off-ramp. Refer to CVC 22507.5."
____________________________

Please, keep in mind that CITYWIDE sign might not fall under the
regulatory specifics of CVC 22507.6
____________________________

Good luck!
____________________________

BlunterII

[tickedoffagain]

I got bit last night in front of my house in the Bay Area. Same deal -- no signs, we just moved there, no one told us of the ordinance, tho the police told me they are only posted at the town entrance. Will have to go look and see. Seems constitutionally vague to me, but haven't done the research.

Sol4justice -- saw your appeal was argued in April. Any order yet? Can you post the case name or number, so I can check out the briefs? Thx

[racer72]

Seems constitutionally vague to me, but haven't done the research.

When you find the part of the Constitution about vehicle parking, please let us all know about it. It was never covered in a Constitutional law class I took.

[patstew]

I got bit last night in front of my house in the Bay Area. Same deal -- no signs, we just moved there, no one told us of the ordinance, tho the police told me they are only posted at the town entrance. Will have to go look and see. Seems constitutionally vague to me, but haven't done the research.

As per usual, most of the outraged citizens posting in this thread are making a giant mountain out of an itty-bitty molehill.

Have you contacted the issuing entity? (And yes, I realize most of this discussion is several months old, but still...). My city used to have the same kind of ordinance, but we gave a warning for the first offense if the person was new to the area or visiting someone.

The ordinance has since been rescinded, but we also had signs on the major routes into the city and several locations within (I kept a list of them for when OUR outraged citizens called in, smoking at the ears). One person took it all the way to the state supreme court, which upheld the city's position.

So fer cryin' out loud, at least TRY to get this settled in an amicable fashion before getting all cranked up about what might ultimately be a non-issue. Thanks.