Erroneous Parking Ticket by County of Los Angeles

[Free_Advice]

I received a copy of the parking ticket. It is computer-printed. The vehicle information on the ticket is identical to the information in the DMV computer: license plate number, State, valid registration month and year, vehicle make.

The vehicle Type is written as SU. In my DMV registration card the Body Type Model is written as UT.

The vehicle color is written as SI. My car color is white.

Other information on the ticket:
County Area/Property: 1-UNICORPORATED
VIN Number: CAN NOT READ
R/D: 2172
Agency: 03-CENTURY
Violation Code: 15200702
Violation Description: STREET SWEEPING
Comments: 8AM-12NOON THURS
(The ticket was issued on Thursday at 9:51 am)

I haven’t received yet the administrative hearing regulation.

From the information provided by the OP (I am assuming its correct and complete) I see issues including:

1) no signature of officer
2) no name of officer
3) no proper citation of statutory violation (15200702) is not descriptive enough IMO ...
4) "SI" is not a color at all

A pic would have been better .. the op may not have shown all that is on it ..

It is likely that all 4 items I listed are required to be on the notice for it to be a valid notice; without a valid note, the notice loses its "notice" designation and has no legal effect upon the vehicle owner.

Have not seen what is required on the notice posted yet...I looked online and could not find it .... the admin rules may have it


And now to the arguments of law that the OP can present:

1) its a civil violation yet no damage or injury is plead by the plaintiff
2) the plaintiff has no legal standing to bring the count unless there is an injury
3) the plaintiff does not plead that street sweeping actually happened during the time period the OP was parked (the law/ordinance/reg can be argued as not being mandatory unless street sweeping actually occurred).

I would recommend the OP file a FOIA request to the dept that does street sweeping and ask for documents that document that sweeping occurred that day during that time period at that location ~ the total request made & response is admissible as evidence. If not sweeping occurred then I would think an argument can be made that the cause of action is dead.

In dealing with parking violations via mail the more arguments you make the greater chance you have of winning. Many people actually win who present a well written argument(s)...double space the document & make it look like a court filing with court headers etc...

 

[Zigner]

From the information provided by the OP (I am assuming its correct and complete) I see issues including:

1) no signature of officer
2) no name of officer
3) no proper citation of statutory violation (15200702) is not descriptive enough IMO ...
4) "SI" is not a color at all

A pic would have been better .. the op may not have shown all that is on it ..

It is likely that all 4 items I listed are required to be on the notice for it to be a valid notice; without a valid note, the notice loses its "notice" designation and has no legal effect upon the vehicle owner.

Have not seen what is required on the notice posted yet...I looked online and could not find it .... the admin rules may have it

Badadvice - you have no clue. Stop posting intentionally inaccurate and misleading information. Just stop.

 

[Free_Advice]

Badadvice - you have no clue. Stop posting intentionally inaccurate and misleading information. Just stop.

I have won all my parking tickets ... ALL. And all by mail.

You have a right to confront witnesses .. the lack of the officer's name is grounds alone to win the case.

I know, zig -- just pay it is your advice...

 

[Zigner]

I have won all my parking tickets ... ALL. And all by mail.

You have a right to confront witnesses .. the lack of the officer's name is grounds alone to win the case.

I know, zig -- just pay it is your advice...

You have no clue how things work in LA. You are intentionally misleading and providing inaccurate advice.

Just stop guessing...that's all you're being asked to do.

 

[Free_Advice]

You have no clue how things work in LA. You are intentionally misleading and providing inaccurate advice.

Just stop guessing...that's all you're being asked to do.

Stop posting on this thread ... you are the clueless one

 

[Free_Advice]

If the OP wishes to see one of my by mail pleadings he can PM me his email address & I'll send it via email.... some of the issues I had are the same as the OPs...

 

[Zigner]

If the OP wishes to see one of my by mail pleadings he can PM me his email address & I'll send it via email.... some of the issues I had are the same as the OPs...

I would suggest that the OP totally ignore your inapplicable information.

Stop misleading our posters.

 

[Free_Advice]

I would suggest that the OP totally ignore your inapplicable information.

Stop misleading our posters.

Stop trolling , you know nothing about this subject matter .. if you have some advice other than just pay it for the poster or to ignore my advice then discontinue your trolling. You have made your opinion known, move along.

 

[CdwJava]

1) its a civil violation yet no damage or injury is plead by the plaintiff

Not true in CA.

2) the plaintiff has no legal standing to bring the count unless there is an injury

Not true in CA.

3) the plaintiff does not plead that street sweeping actually happened during the time period the OP was parked (the law/ordinance/reg can be argued as not being mandatory unless street sweeping actually occurred).

Street sweeping would not even be required if parking was prohibited dring that time frame.

I would recommend the OP file a FOIA request to the dept that does street sweeping and ask for documents that document that sweeping occurred that day during that time period at that location ~ the total request made & response is admissible as evidence. If not sweeping occurred then I would think an argument can be made that the cause of action is dead.

The issue of when or if sweeping took place still does not mitigate the fact that the sign likely says "NO PARKING" between those specific hours.

In dealing with parking violations via mail the more arguments you make the greater chance you have of winning.

In CA these are heard by a hearing officer or panel that is selected by the agency to hear challenges and appeals. Only if they lose at those first two levels do they have the option to go to court, but then they would have to drive all the way down to L.A. to contest it in the courtroom and the cost of the gas involved would be much greater than the cost of the citation, I am sure.

Many people actually win who present a well written argument(s)...double space the document & make it look like a court filing with court headers etc...

That might be impressive, but irrelevant if the sign says "no parking."

The OP here does not want to argue the validity of the code section or the violation, but the identification of his vehicle. he claims he was not anywhere nearby. It is possible that the citing officer (likely parking enforcement personnel and not a peace officer) got the plate wrong and lazily simply entered the registration info he or she got back from the registration without verifying the info as matching. There have been a number of scandals involving parking enforcement in L.A. and elsewhere so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some malfeasance occurred. I believe the OP has a chance to prevail with a reasoned explanation as to where he was and where the car was at the time of the alleged violation. If he can provide ANY supplemental evidence to show he was elsewhere on the date of the violation it might be sufficient to convince a hearing officer or panel to overturn the parking citation.

I am happy you have won your parking citations (though I would recommend you start to heed parking regulations before you actually get your car towed or hit for a more serious offense). But, you are not from CA and apparently are not well versed on how parking offenses work out here.

 

[Free_Advice]

The OP here does not want to argue the validity of the code section or the violation, but the identification of his vehicle. he claims he was not anywhere nearby. It is possible that the citing officer (likely parking enforcement personnel and not a peace officer) got the plate wrong and lazily simply entered the registration info he or she got back from the registration without verifying the info as matching. There have been a number of scandals involving parking enforcement in L.A. and elsewhere so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some malfeasance occurred. I believe the OP has a chance to prevail with a reasoned explanation as to where he was and where the car was at the time of the alleged violation. If he can provide ANY supplemental evidence to show he was elsewhere on the date of the violation it might be sufficient to convince a hearing officer or panel to overturn the parking citation.

The OP does have facts to present to the parking official as well as trying to point out deficiencies in the notice. And what the official would consider proof is unknown ..

If the notice is deficient, then the factual arguments are moot.

If one can get the notice knocked out due to errors on the notice that is the best avenue ... the factual arguments can be plead in the alternative.

The OP may not have considered this aspect of a defense; I see nothing wrong with letting the OP know that a defective notice is good to plead.

Do you see anything wrong with the information the OP provided regarding the notice? Even in admin hearings you have the right to subpoena the officer, correct? But you cannot do that if the officer's name is not on the notice.

I am still waiting for the requirements of the notice so some things are being discussed in a manner that presumes the requirements of the notice. If you know what is required on the notice, please post these requirements.

Understand that I am trying to assist the OP.

 

[Zigner]

The OP does have facts to present to the parking official as well as trying to point out deficiencies in the notice. And what the official would consider proof is unknown ..

If the notice is deficient, then the factual arguments are moot.

If one can get the notice knocked out due to errors on the notice that is the best avenue ... the factual arguments can be plead in the alternative.

The OP may not have considered this aspect of a defense; I see nothing wrong with letting the OP know that a defective notice is good to plead.

Do you see anything wrong with the information the OP provided regarding the notice? Even in admin hearings you have the right to subpoena the officer, correct? But you cannot do that if the officer's name is not on the notice.

I am still waiting for the requirements of the notice so some things are being discussed in a manner that presumes the requirements of the notice. If you know what is required on the notice, please post these requirements.

Understand that I am trying to assist the OP.

Again, you have absolutely, POSITIVELY no clue of what you speak.

You are NOT trying to "help" the OP - you are posting intentionally misleading information, IMO.

 

[CdwJava]

If the notice is deficient, then the factual arguments are moot.

The requirements for a parking citation are indicated in CVC 40202 et seq.

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=40001-41000&file=40200-40230

However, since the matter is not in court, a demurrer will fall on deaf ears at the initial two stages of the process. And court would likely require a personal appearance. But, if the principle is worth paying a couple times more than the amount of the citation in gas, and taking a day or two off of work, well, that's the OP's call if it comes to that.

Do you see anything wrong with the information the OP provided regarding the notice? Even in admin hearings you have the right to subpoena the officer, correct? But you cannot do that if the officer's name is not on the notice.

The OP may not have provided the full info they received. Or, the printout does not have that information cause it is information only and not a copy of the citation.

And, no, there is no subpoena power at a parking ticket hearing. Depending on agency policy, they may speak with the officer ahead of time, may call him or her in to speak on the matter, or not speak to him or her at all. When i conduct these hearings, I speak to the officer directly and obtain his or her statement prior to the hearing if I can.

Remember, this is an administrative and civil process and the same rules that might apply in a court matter do not apply here at the initial levels.

 

[HighwayMan]

You have no clue how things work in LA. You are intentionally misleading and providing inaccurate advice.

Just stop guessing...

Par for the course unfortunately. With no change or end in sight.

 

[Free_Advice]

thanks java man

40200. (a) Any violation of any regulation that is not a
misdemeanor governing the standing or parking of a vehicle under this
code, under any federal statute or regulation, or under any
ordinance enacted by local authorities is subject to a civil penalty.
The enforcement of those civil penalties shall be governed by the
civil administrative procedures set forth in this article.....

so it is a civil penalty/offense




40202. (a) If a vehicle is unattended during the time of the
violation, the peace officer or person authorized to enforce parking
laws and regulations shall securely attach to the vehicle a notice of
parking violation setting forth the violation, including reference
to the section of this code or of the Public Resources Code, the
local ordinance, or the federal statute or regulation so violated;
the date; the approximate time thereof; the location where the
violation occurred; a statement printed on the notice indicating that
the date of payment is required to be made not later than 21
calendar days from the date of citation issuance; and the procedure
for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to deposit the parking
penalty or, pursuant to Section 40215, contest the citation. The
notice of parking violation shall also set forth the vehicle license
number and registration expiration date if they are visible, the last
four digits of the vehicle identification number, if that number is
readable through the windshield, the color of the vehicle, and, if
possible, the make of the vehicle. The notice of parking violation,
or copy thereof, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary
course of business of the issuing agency and the processing agency
and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein.


so COLOR is a requirement for a notice & its a mandatory one ; last 4 digits of VIN # ; and a proper statutory citation is required


I don't see the notice being a proper notice at all...(based on the information that the OP provided)

 

[Free_Advice]

thx again to javaman

40205. If a person contests the parking violation, the processing
agency shall proceed in accordance with Section 40215.


So the OP should become familiar with 40215 ...

I think the OP has a good case to plead ... he has procedural issues, due process issues, notice issues, and factual issues to bring to the parking official's attention.

I am very concerned that a notice is not required to identify the officer issuing the ticket (unless I missed that in the link's text) -- a clear violation of your right to confront the witness...you don't even know who issued the ticket, if it was an officer etc..