Pittsburgh Airport parking ticket

[Curtis Lowe]

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

Hello folks,
Here are my scenario and questions.

A friend used my car to pick up another friend at the Pgh airport a few weeks back. I just received a parking ticket in the mail. Reason for cittion is as follows " driver parked multiple times near door 5,sped away when approached. Driver's window down when instructed to stop. Video available".

I spoke with my friend who says he just kept circling and pulling over to the curb each lap to see if his friend had arrived yet because the flight was delayed. He never left the car and never heard the officer say anything to him.

So. Am I responsible for this ticket if I was not driving ? I believe the video should establish that it was not me.

Would I be required to tell the court the name of the person driving if I use this defense ?

Is this an offense that incurs points against my license in PA?

Thanks in advance for ypur help.

CL

 

[xylene]

Is this an offense that incurs points against my license in PA?

It is hard to say, you haven't indicated the actual charge.

If it really is a parking ticket, then no.

The easiest way, that wastes the least of your time, is to INSIST that your boneheaded friend own up to his responsibility in borrowing your car and pay you immediately.

His excuse is SUPER weak by the way.

If he disagrees... he is NOT your friend.

Of COURSE if you go to court you would have to out your friend, and I can't understand why that would matter for the terribly inconvenient place you are in for his stupidity and cheapness in not just parking.

 

[racer72]

As the owner of the vehicle, you are legally liable for the ticket. It is not a moving violation, the court does not have to assign the ticket to the driver even if you prove you were not driving the vehicle.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Of COURSE if you go to court you would have to out your friend

I disagree.

The burden is on the government to prove that OP is guilty of the crime. The identity of the party driving is really not relevant to the guilt or innocence of the OP.

However, if it's a parking ticket, the owner is generally held responsible, so the identity of the driver is not relevant.

 

[xylene]

I disagree.

The burden is on the government to prove that OP is guilty of the crime. The identity of the party driving is really not relevant to the guilt or innocence of the OP.

However, if it's a parking ticket, the owner is generally held responsible, so the identity of the driver is not relevant.

If the OP went to court and asserted that he wasn't driving (even if it isn't an effective defense - which I am not yet 100% convinced as we don't know the violation) and he was questioned as to the identity of the driver...

Of course he could not refuse. What are you suggesting that he could perjure himself because it isn't relevant?

Or that a "mystery man" who isn't owning up to the deed themselves did it ("It was ahhhh.... some other guy.") could ever work without naming the other party?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Of course he could not refuse. What are you suggesting that he could perjure himself because it isn't relevant?

No, I'm suggesting he object to the question. The judge should not permit irrelevant testimony to be admitted during the proceeding.

From the PA rules of evidence:

Rule 401. Definition of ‘‘Relevant Evidence.’’

‘‘Relevant evidence’’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible.

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.

 

[Curtis Lowe]

Thanks for responses all.

Ordinance violated was Sec 3353, subsection a3ii

 

[davew128]

If the OP went to court and asserted that he wasn't driving (even if it isn't an effective defense - which I am not yet 100% convinced as we don't know the violation) and he was questioned as to the identity of the driver...

Of course he could not refuse. What are you suggesting that he could perjure himself because it isn't relevant?

The OP can ABSOLUTELY go to court, mount a defense claiming it is not him, NOT TESTIFY, and not be forced to answer questions. Something about a 5th amendment and all that.

 

[FlyingRon]

I disagree.

The burden is on the government to prove that OP is guilty of the crime. The identity of the party driving is really not relevant to the guilt or innocence of the OP.

However, if it's a parking ticket, the owner is generally held responsible, so the identity of the driver is not relevant.

Parking tickets aren't usually crimes but civil actions. All it takes is a preponderance of the evidence. Further, the ordinances are almost always set up to make the owner presumed responsible for parking violations.

 

[xylene]

Something about a 5th amendment and all that.

The 5th amendment precludes compulsory SELF incrimination...

But it isn't going to come to that, as this is just an ordinary parking ticket.

 

[Curtis Lowe]

Well it looks like the concensus is that I pay.

For the record, people I call my friends are not the kind that others have on Facebook and other social networking sites. They are tried and true individuals that I have found to be worthy of the title friend. As such, I believe my friend. He is an older gentleman who does not have a cell phone and was circling and checking because the flight was delayed. He is a law-abiding person with a good driving record. He has agreed to pay for the ticket because he is a decent person. I, however, had preferred that he not have to do so because knowing him as I do, I find it difficult to imagine his version of the matter to be anything less than correct.

I really think this was just the action of an over-zealous officer with a poor attitude.

Thank you kindly for all your input,

CL

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Tell your friend that next time, when he makes the lap around, to stop in the driveway area halfway down the road, past the gas station. He can legally sit parked off the road, out of the way and wait for a cell call.

 

[xylene]

I really think this was just the action of an over-zealous officer with a poor attitude.

Sadly, that is probably quite accurate.

But, this is post 9/11 America, and people getting the business over otherwise harmless behavior in and around airports is the new permanent norm.

Next time, hope he knows to don't circle, park instead.

 

[davew128]

The 5th amendment precludes compulsory SELF incrimination...

One of us doesn't understand the concept here and it isn't me.

 

[Free_Advice]

Thanks for responses all.

Ordinance violated was Sec 3353, subsection a3ii

no posting of the ordinance's text? I'm being lazy today, sorry.