The respondent was "parked" when he stopped ...

[m0ritz]

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

... his vehicle to check directions and to access his trunk.

The above quote is from the hearing decision that I received. Furthermore it states that "... for the purposes of parking restrictions, parking entails stopping, standing and/or waiting in a vehicle."

Needless to say, I never received the original ticket and only learned at the hearing that according to the officer that issued the ticket, who does not need to be at the hearing, the car was "... unattended, no activity and sign posted ...", which is untrue.

This all happened in a street cleaning zone, which I did not notice when I was trying to find directions. There was no noticeable street cleaning activity and there were several other cars parked behind me.

I am still upset about the nature of this ticket and the cowardliness of the officer, but I am also uncertain whether I should continue to fight it, as the cited section 463 of the California Vehicle Code states:
"Park or parking" shall mean 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.

Nonetheless, this feels like an example of bureaucracy over civility.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by m0ritz

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

... his vehicle to check directions and to access his trunk.

The above quote is from the hearing decision that I received. Furthermore it states that "... for the purposes of parking restrictions, parking entails stopping, standing and/or waiting in a vehicle."

Needless to say, I never received the original ticket and only learned at the hearing that according to the officer that issued the ticket, who does not need to be at the hearing, the car was "... unattended, no activity and sign posted ...", which is untrue.

This all happened in a street cleaning zone, which I did not notice when I was trying to find directions. There was no noticeable street cleaning activity and there were several other cars parked behind me.

I am still upset about the nature of this ticket and the cowardliness of the officer, but I am also uncertain whether I should continue to fight it, as the cited section 463 of the California Vehicle Code states:
"Park or parking" shall mean 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.

Nonetheless, this feels like an example of bureaucracy over civility.

So, what makes you think you weren't parked?

[The Occultist]

Finding directions is not loading/unloading passengers or merchandise. Sounds like a good judgement to me.

[m0ritz]

I had been looking for a definition of parking vs. stopping. I agree that following it to the letter, I was parked. The best decisions don't always occur while following instructions to the letter.

What makes the officer claim that the vehicle was unattended? His untrue statement doesn't seem to bear any relevance, even though I seem to remember that it states on the tickets that false claims regarding tickets are a felony. No following to the letter here.

[IsabellaSoriano]

Originally Posted by m0ritz

I had been looking for a definition of parking vs. stopping. I agree that following it to the letter, I was parked. The best decisions don't always occur while following instructions to the letter.

What makes the officer claim that the vehicle was unattended? His untrue statement doesn't seem to bear any relevance, even though I seem to remember that it states on the tickets that false claims regarding tickets are a felony. No following to the letter here.

you were not in the driver seat. that leaves the vehicle unattended.

[m0ritz]

Not in the driver seat? How did you make that conclusion?

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by m0ritz

What makes the officer claim that the vehicle was unattended? .

Did you see the officer?

It would seem asking the officer for directions would have been your best place to look for directions. Obviously he saw your car parked since you admit it was and he issued a ticket for it.

I would suggest that if you did not see the officer, the car was unattended.

but due to this:

There was no noticeable street cleaning activity and there were several other cars parked behind me.

I would go with the argument:

But everybody else was doing it too!!

maybe stamping your foot when you say it will help too.

[CdwJava]

What code section were you cited for? Was it a Vehicle Code section, or, a local municipal or county code section? It the latter what city or county?

Was a street cleaning sign present? (Even if you did not immediately notice it)

Why was the officer "cowardly"? Because he did not show up at a hearing where he was not required to?

If you did not receive the "original ticket" how were you notified to attend the hearing?

Note that stopping at the curb to look for directions IS parking pursuant to CVC 463 (as you pointed out):

463. "Park or parking" shall mean 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.

Further, if the sign forbade parking at ANY time, then even loading or unloading would not exempt you.

One can argue the wisdom of citing for a short stop to look for directions when you were not obstructing street sweepers or whatever, but it does not appear to be unlawful in any way.

If this was your first hearing, you are free to appeal it up another level and, eventually, to a court if you wish. Note that a court is not very likely to dismiss on an emotional appeal, so if the sign was in place and you even technically violated it, you're not likely to prevail there and you may incur court costs.

And prohibited stopping is defined here:

587. "Stop or stopping" when prohibited shall mean any cessation of
movement of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with
the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device
or signal.

- Carl

[m0ritz]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

What code section were you cited for? Was it a Vehicle Code section, or, a local municipal or county code section? It the latter what city or county?

MC 80.69BS in LA

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Was a street cleaning sign present? (Even if you did not immediately notice it)

Yes

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Why was the officer "cowardly"? Because he did not show up at a hearing where he was not required to?

No, because he did not approach my car to post the ticket. Yes, I saw him when I pulled away walking over to the car behind me.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

If you did not receive the "original ticket" how were you notified to attend the hearing?

By a notice of delinquent parking violation via mail.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Note that stopping at the curb to look for directions IS parking pursuant to CVC 463 (as you pointed out):

463. "Park or parking" shall mean 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.

I learned that.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Further, if the sign forbade parking at ANY time, then even loading or unloading would not exempt you.

I can't follow that reasoning. How would a time limit allow or disallow the loading or unloading permissible as of section 463?

Originally Posted by CdwJava

One can argue the wisdom of citing for a short stop to look for directions when you were not obstructing street sweepers or whatever, but it does not appear to be unlawful in any way.

What is not unlawful? The fact of issuing a violation? No it's not unlawful, but there was no need to issue a ticket either. The officer could have made another choice. And he could have chosen to not claim that the vehicle was unattended.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

If this was your first hearing, you are free to appeal it up another level and, eventually, to a court if you wish. Note that a court is not very likely to dismiss on an emotional appeal, so if the sign was in place and you even technically violated it, you're not likely to prevail there and you may incur court costs.

I tend to agree.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

And prohibited stopping is defined here:

587. "Stop or stopping" when prohibited shall mean any cessation of
movement of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with
the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device
or signal.

- Carl

[patstew]

Originally Posted by m0ritz

No it's not unlawful, but there was no need to issue a ticket either. The officer could have made another choice. And he could have chosen to not claim that the vehicle was unattended.

You made a choice as well: to park where you did without checking for any restrictions. We don't always like the outcome of our choices, but we do have to live with them.

As for claiming the vehicle was unattended, you stated that you didn't see the officer until you drove away. If you were just looking in your trunk, how did you miss the officer? Did you maybe walk a little ways away to ask someone? I'm just saying.

[Zigner]

Why are you so stuck on whether the vehicle was attended or unattended? Even if you were sitting in the driver's seat with the engine running, you STILL committed the violation.

[Zigner]

For the record, this is what you were charged with:

SEC. 80.69. PARKING PROHIBITED OR LIMITED.
(Title Amended by Ord. No. 122,716, Eff. 10/5/62.)
Whenever, with reference to any street or portion thereof, the Department determines that: (1) the same is within a business district; or (2) because of proximity to a business district or center of employment; or (3) because of an unusual concentration of population; or (4) because vehicles which are six feet or more in height (including any load thereon) parked within 100 feet of an intersection limit the visibility of approaching traffic and thereby create a hazard; or (5) because of any other factor or condition, the unrestricted parking of vehicles has caused, or would necessarily cause, traffic congestion, create a hazard, detrimentally affect the public welfare, or deprive the public of the efficient use of available curb space, the Department is hereby authorized to install at any such place signs giving notice that no person shall stand, stop or park a vehicle except as provided on such signs. The Department is further authorized to include notice on any sign which prohibits the stopping or parking of vehicles, that vehicles parked or left standing in violation of such sign may be removed. (Amended by Ord. No. 161,645, Eff. 10/17/86.)
(a) Stopping or Standing Prohibited. Whenever authorized signs are in place giving notice that stopping or standing is prohibited during such hours or on such days as are indicated on such signs, it shall be unlawful for any person to stop or stand or park any vehicle at any time during such hours or such days.
(b) Parking Prohibited. Whenever authorized signs are in place giving notice that parking, as defined in Section 463 of the California Vehicle Code, is prohibited at any time or during certain hours, it shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle during such prohibited times, except as provided in Section 88.01.1 of this chapter. (Amended by Ord. No. 170,019, Eff. 10/21/94.)


(Parking has already been defined by Carl above.)

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by m0ritz

MC 80.69BS in LA

As posted by Zigner, your act would appear to be specifically prohibited by the code section.

No, because he did not approach my car to post the ticket. Yes, I saw him when I pulled away walking over to the car behind me.

Apparently he was working his way up to you. Had you remained another couple of minutes, perhaps he would have gotten to you. Instead, he got your license plate and you were notified by mail.

I can't follow that reasoning. How would a time limit allow or disallow the loading or unloading permissible as of section 463?

Because a sign can prohibit ANY stopping, standing, or parking. There are places that you cannot park or leave the vehicle standing to load and unload people.

But, since you were admittedly not even loading and unloading, that question is not even an issue for your case.

What is not unlawful? The fact of issuing a violation? No it's not unlawful, but there was no need to issue a ticket either.

The fact that the officer had discretion does not invalidate the citation. The fact that I or another officer MIGHT not have issued it would be irrelevant. Based upon what you wrote, the statute was violated and the citation was issued. You appear to be out of luck unless the appeals board wishes to take up your emotional appeal and dismiss based upon their interpretation of common sense.

The officer could have made another choice. And he could have chosen to not claim that the vehicle was unattended.

Perhaps your head was down when he looked at your car ... or, the windows were tinted ... or, for whatever reason, he did not see you. We will probably never know the answer to that one.

- Carl