BrianHarrison
Junior Member
Illinois. My situation is as follows. I moved to a suburb of Chicago (from a neighboring suburb) eight months ago. About 2 weeks ago, I received a parking ticket citing that I did not have a "valid village parking pass." Not that it matters, but when I moved here, I called the parking office to inquire about any "parking permit" and was told that i did not need one - some sort of mixup I suppose. Being that I work a lot and can't typically make it into the municipal building during their 9-5 business hours, I was unable to go until today. In the meantime, I received another of the same parking tickets. I finally made it in and sufficed to say, my experience with the lady working there was not particularly friendly. Rather than just let me buy a pass for the normal price of $25, she stated that I would have to pay $80 in penalties for not getting one when I first moved here and since they are good for a year beginning 4/1, I would need to buy another one in a month and a half. When I inquired how I was able to receive a parking ticket when my car was parked on private property in a space that I rent, she hands me a paper citing the Plain View Doctrine as their justification. After reviewing it, I do not see how this possibly meets the criteria stated. My car is parked on a private lot that is owned by the condo building in which I rent a unit. First, there is an alley on the back side. There is also a separate private entrance (not an alley, with a posted sign stating "private property, no trespassing") that cuts through the other side. Second, my windshield (where permit sticker would be placed) is not visible from the alley and the only way it would be "in plain sight" is if the officer was already trespassing on private grounds. Thirdly, the whole premise of this doctrine seems unrelated as it repeatedly cites physical items and evidence of a crime (as in objects), not the absence of something.
For reference, the sheet they provided states the following (abbreviated):
There are 6 elements which must be met to satisfy the seizure of evidence:
1. The law enforcement officer must be in a legal capacity or position to come across the said evidence in plain view. In other words the LE must be at the scene either arresting the person, executing a search warrant or other legal circumstances.
((Legal capacity, ok...but driving through the ally with a spotlight looking for parking stickers is an overt act, not a coincidence))
2. The LE must actually observe the item of evidence with their own eyes. The LE must not have done anything illegal to get into the position to view the evidence in question.
((Can't be seen without trespassing first))
3. The LE must observe the item in plain view. They may use a flashlight to assist them. It is prohibited to open a closed container unless they have a warrant. They cannot just have a hunch regarding the evidence.
((Doesn't really apply))
4. The LE may not intrude or invade the privacy of any person under the reasonable expectation of privacy act as it applies to the Constitution.
((Absolutely in violation of this))
5. The LE must have probable cause to believe that the evidence in question falls into one of the following categories:
-Evidence is believed to be stolen or embezzled property
-Evidence was used to commit crimes, typically a weapon
-Evidence is illegal in nature such as drugs
-Evidence will assist LE in the arrest or conviction of an arrestee
6. The LE did not plan on observing the evidence. Under emergency circumstances warrants are not needed, as in arson cases it is essential to find crucial evidence.
((Again, they ticket in the middle of the night, so either they are out of their car looking in windows or with a spotlight...either way, it's overt and seems to violate the fact that they are actively planning on observing))
My questions are:
1. If I chose to fight it, would I have a chance?
2. How ridiculous is the following idea?
I am likely going to be moving again in a couple of months and would like (mostly out of stubborn pride) to avoid giving in to this. Since the only way my windshield is possibly visible from public roads is through the back window at just the right angle and with a pair of binoculars, my idea at this point is to just put one of those windshield sun shields up every night. No law broken and then the only two possible ways it could be seen are either 1) a LE trespassing or 2) the city decides to spend millions on aerial surveillance.
Sorry, it's a little long, I'm just a man who gets hung up on principles and am a little heated by the whole thing. Thanks in advance.
BrianWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
For reference, the sheet they provided states the following (abbreviated):
There are 6 elements which must be met to satisfy the seizure of evidence:
1. The law enforcement officer must be in a legal capacity or position to come across the said evidence in plain view. In other words the LE must be at the scene either arresting the person, executing a search warrant or other legal circumstances.
((Legal capacity, ok...but driving through the ally with a spotlight looking for parking stickers is an overt act, not a coincidence))
2. The LE must actually observe the item of evidence with their own eyes. The LE must not have done anything illegal to get into the position to view the evidence in question.
((Can't be seen without trespassing first))
3. The LE must observe the item in plain view. They may use a flashlight to assist them. It is prohibited to open a closed container unless they have a warrant. They cannot just have a hunch regarding the evidence.
((Doesn't really apply))
4. The LE may not intrude or invade the privacy of any person under the reasonable expectation of privacy act as it applies to the Constitution.
((Absolutely in violation of this))
5. The LE must have probable cause to believe that the evidence in question falls into one of the following categories:
-Evidence is believed to be stolen or embezzled property
-Evidence was used to commit crimes, typically a weapon
-Evidence is illegal in nature such as drugs
-Evidence will assist LE in the arrest or conviction of an arrestee
6. The LE did not plan on observing the evidence. Under emergency circumstances warrants are not needed, as in arson cases it is essential to find crucial evidence.
((Again, they ticket in the middle of the night, so either they are out of their car looking in windows or with a spotlight...either way, it's overt and seems to violate the fact that they are actively planning on observing))
My questions are:
1. If I chose to fight it, would I have a chance?
2. How ridiculous is the following idea?
I am likely going to be moving again in a couple of months and would like (mostly out of stubborn pride) to avoid giving in to this. Since the only way my windshield is possibly visible from public roads is through the back window at just the right angle and with a pair of binoculars, my idea at this point is to just put one of those windshield sun shields up every night. No law broken and then the only two possible ways it could be seen are either 1) a LE trespassing or 2) the city decides to spend millions on aerial surveillance.
Sorry, it's a little long, I'm just a man who gets hung up on principles and am a little heated by the whole thing. Thanks in advance.
BrianWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
