CA 72 hour parking 'warning'

[LoganS]

Hi,
The LAPD just handed me a warning about parking my newish, functioning RV, that states:

"All vehicles parked on the street over 72 hours are in violation of Los Angeles municipal code section 80.73.2. Such vehicles must be removed from all city streets. If not in running condition, the vehicle must be stored of public streets. (It is also illegal to park it on private property without permission of the owner.) Pushing the vehicle to another location, across the street, around the block and returning to the same location, or leaving the vehicle on the street while making repairs does not comply with the municipal code. All such vehicles shall be checked and rechecked for compliance."

I haven't found this in the MC or on the LADoT website and the warning states that I'm parked illegally but I am not. The 72 hour law is being used to harass RV dwellers.

Is this warning defensible? I'm not storing my vehicle here, I'm living in it. I pay tax, I have the right to park here equally with everyone else. I love every 72 hours to comply with laws. But according to this warning I have to move to another street? That doesn't seem like a law.

Thanks for advice.

 

[HighwayMan]

It's all right here:

https://prodpci.etimspayments.com/pbw/include/laopm/abandona.html

SEC. 80.73.2. USE OF STREET FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES – GENERALLY – WHEN PROHIBITED.

It shall be unlawful for any person who owns or who has possession, custody or control of any vehicle to park that vehicle or leave it standing upon any highway, street or alley for 72 or more consecutive hours.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Were you parked for over 72 hours?

 

[LoganS]

I read that.

And no, I am not parked over 72 hours.

I move every couple days at least some distance to keep from being marked abandoned.

My post has more to do with this warning that states you have to move some ambiguous amount of distance otherwise you will still be towed, even if you're not in the new spot for 72 hours. I don't see how this is part of the law.

 

[HighwayMan]

You can also read this:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-rv-homeless-20180317-story.html

 

[LoganS]

Thank you? I'm not sure what the purpose of that is.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

LoganS Read this. Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) 85.02 – Vehicle Dwelling

 

[CdwJava]

The warning is not w citation, it is merely that: A warning.

If you have not been cited, and you are not in violation of the code, you should not have anything to worry about. Though, I wouldn't try to play games and move the RV only a couple feet ... it might be best to move it a block or more just to avoid the issue. And moving it at least every 48 hours would be advisable ... AND, read all the local signs so that you are not in violation of some additional provisions.

Then there is the whole living in your vehicle thing as noted above.

 

[LoganS]

@PayrollHRGuy Thank you. I am in accordance with all the vehicle dwelling laws and am parked on a legal 24 hour 'green' street with no posted parking signs.

@CdwJava Yes, thank you. This is what I'm worried about. In my mind even if I move a few feet or to a new spot down the road it will prove that my vehicle is not abandoned therefore escaping the mechanism they would use to tow my vehicle legally, correct?

 

[adjusterjack]

In my mind even if I move a few feet or to a new spot down the road it will prove that my vehicle is not abandoned therefore escaping the mechanism they would use to tow my vehicle legally, correct?

No.

Police officers patrol a wide area. They already have your license plate number and all your info from the DMV. If they spot you every couple days in a different place within the same area you are likely to be cited or towed.

I couldn't guess how far you would need to go to avoid a citation or a towing but a SMART person would heed the warning and find an RV park.

Anybody else would be back here after a $500 tow asking "What are my rights"? "Who can I sue?" "I can't afford a lawyer." Do you want to be that person?

 

[LoganS]

That's why I'm here now. If RV parks existed in LA that were anywhere close to where I needed to be for work I would probably do that. Thanks.

Also, you haven't substantiated the why other than police patrolling an area. Yeah law says they can't cite you if you move. There isn't a distance stated. This is my argument. The warning feels like a bluff and I'm here to see what the actual law says in regards to movement. I've read a lot of veh 22669 and couldn't find anything they would be able to cite me for.

I would ask for advice on what the law says and less personal opinion, please. Appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[LoganS]

It's all right here:

https://prodpci.etimspayments.com/pbw/include/laopm/abandona.html

SEC. 80.73.2. USE OF STREET FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES – GENERALLY – WHEN PROHIBITED.

It shall be unlawful for any person who owns or who has possession, custody or control of any vehicle to park that vehicle or leave it standing upon any highway, street or alley for 72 or more consecutive hours.

I'm not storing a vehicle I'm living in it legally. On a road that's legal to dwell in. And if you continue reading that passage further down it states the stipulations upon which one would be in violation of that law. None of which applies to myself.

 

[FlyingRon]

"Storage" is just a synonym for parking/standing here. It matters not if you're living in the car. If it is parked or standing (which it appears to be since it was not moving) for more than 72 consecutive hours, it violates the ordinance, which says simply what you have in your bold faced quote.

There are no additional stipulations to the law. All that link you provides is information on how people should make a complaint. Once an officer observes the parked vehicle over the time stated, you're in violation and can be towed. There is no requirement for a storage complaint to have been filed. Such just calls law enforcement attention to an existing violation, but they can find them without such.

 

[LoganS]

"A Traffic Officer cannot simply tow a vehicle because you file a storage complaint. The Traffic Officer must first inspect and observe the vehicle over a 72-hour period to determine that the vehicle has not been moved. After at least 72 hours have elapsed from the time of inspection and observation, the vehicle may be impounded."

But this.

Between marking tires there is no way, without camera evidence, an officer can tell the difference between 3 feet and a mile. So.... I feel like this is all defensible just using what the law states. If it was something different, than it would have to be stated specifically that vehicles can't be parked on the same block for more than 72 hours.

 

[FlyingRon]

Your first quote is entirely IMMATERIAL. There doesn't need to be a storage complaint. All that paragraph is there for is to tell people who are complaining about people like you that the officer can't take the citizen's word that the car has been there for more than 72 hours.

Understand, that if you car hasn't moved, it hasn't moved. You can try to invent loopholes as much as you like, but if you committed, you committed it. The officer is neither required to take pictuers nor continually observe the car being immobile. He will testify that he observed the car parked for the duration and you'll lose.