Interesting Parking Violation

[JIMinCA]

What is the name of your state? CA

I have a friend who was issued a parking citation. She is listed as the registered owner and the ticket requires that she pay the ticket or defend herself against the ticket. However, the officer who wrote the ticket wrote a note on the ticket that another person was the driver.

So, who is actually responsible for this ticket? I think I would advise her to simply deny responsibility as she was not the operator of the vehicle (as stated by the officer). If the city wants to persue the driver, they can at that time.

Opinions??

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state? CA

I have a friend who was issued a parking citation. She is listed as the registered owner and the ticket requires that she pay the ticket or defend herself against the ticket. However, the officer who wrote the ticket wrote a note on the ticket that another person was the driver.

So, who is actually responsible for this ticket? I think I would advise her to simply deny responsibility as she was not the operator of the vehicle (as stated by the officer). If the city wants to persue the driver, they can at that time.

Opinions??

Jim -

(generally) The RO and the driver are jointly responsible (to the issuing authority) for parking tickets issued to the vehicle. However, the owner CAN recover from the driver...

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.
(b) Except as provided in Section 40209, the registered owner and
driver, rentee, or lessee of a vehicle cited for any violation of any
regulation governing the parking of a vehicle under this code, under
any federal statute or regulation, or under any ordinance enacted by
a local authority shall be jointly liable for parking penalties
imposed under this article, unless the owner can show that the
vehicle was used without consent of that person, express or implied.
An owner who pays any parking penalty, civil judgment, costs, or
administrative fees pursuant to this article shall have the right to
recover the same from the driver, rentee, or lessee.
(c) The driver of a vehicle who is not the owner thereof but who
uses or operates the vehicle with the express or implied permission
of the owner shall be considered the agent of the owner to receive
notices of parking violations served in accordance with this article
and may contest the notice of violation.


And, just to be thorough:

40209. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the
processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the
notice of delinquent parking violation together with the proof of a
written lease or rental agreement between a bona fide rental or
leasing company, and its customer which identifies the rentee or
lessee and provides the driver's license number, name, and address of
the rentee or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail to
the rentee or lessee identified in the affidavit of nonliability a
notice of delinquent parking violation. If payment is not received
within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the citation or
14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent
parking violation, the processing agency may proceed against the
rentee or lessee pursuant to Section 40220.

 

[JIMinCA]

Zig,

I understand that, however, the Vehicle Code seems to contradict itself. VC 40215(a) states in part:

If, following the initial review, the
issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, that
the registered owner was not responsible for the violation, or that
extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the citation appropriate
in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the
notice of parking violation or notice of delinquent parking
violation.

It seems to me that the fact the officer wrote on the ticket who the driver was, the RO is obviously NOT responsible for the violation.

Any more opinions??

 

[Zigner]

Zig,

I understand that, however, the Vehicle Code seems to contradict itself. VC 40215(a) states in part:



It seems to me that the fact the officer wrote on the ticket who the driver was, the RO is obviously NOT responsible for the violation.

Any more opinions??

The RO *IS* "responsible" for the violation (in the situation you explained). She gave permission for her vehicle to be used, thus assuming "responsibility" for any parking tickets that may occur.
Now, if the vehicle had been hit by another car and pushed in to the red zone, or maybe the meter was defective and only gave credit for half the time paid for (etc), THEN you could argue that the RO is not "responsible"...but not in the case you presented.


EDIT: I'm assuming the driver actually had permission to use the vehicle

 

[JIMinCA]

The RO *IS* "responsible" for the violation (in the situation you explained). She gave permission for her vehicle to be used, thus assuming "responsibility" for any parking tickets that may occur.
Now, if the vehicle had been hit by another car and pushed in to the red zone, or maybe the meter was defective and only gave credit for half the time paid for (etc), THEN you could argue that the RO is not "responsible"...but not in the case you presented.


EDIT: I'm assuming the driver actually had permission to use the vehicle

The driver did have permission.

I do think the law is a bit unclear and contradictory. I showed the applicable statutes to the RO, she wrote a letter, signed it and delivered it to the police department. I'll let you know how it turns out.

 

[Zigner]

The driver did have permission.

I do think the law is a bit unclear and contradictory. I showed the applicable statutes to the RO, she wrote a letter, signed it and delivered it to the police department. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Thanks -
I'd be interested to know

 

[CdwJava]

What was the violation?

Was it issued on a parking notice, or on a citation?

In general, the registered owner is going to be held accountable for the violation. However, if at the initial hearing the R/O can provide sufficient information regarding the person who DID drive the vehicle, the city may pursue that individual. The city may not be amenable to dropping the action if the R/O does not cooperate with identifying the driver.

Typically, the parking authority doesn't contact or name the driver ... if it had been a police officer issuing the cite, they should have issued a traffic citation as opposed to a parking citation as the matter then becomes real clear.

I conduct our city's parking violation hearings and have yet to ever come across this. I can see where the two sections are contradictory, but would probably opt for the joint liability unless the R/O can adequately identify the driver who should be solely responsible.

- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

What was the violation?

Was it issued on a parking notice, or on a citation?

In general, the registered owner is going to be held accountable for the violation. However, if at the initial hearing the R/O can provide sufficient information regarding the person who DID drive the vehicle, the city may pursue that individual. The city may not be amenable to dropping the action if the R/O does not cooperate with identifying the driver.

Typically, the parking authority doesn't contact or name the driver ... if it had been a police officer issuing the cite, they should have issued a traffic citation as opposed to a parking citation as the matter then becomes real clear.

I conduct our city's parking violation hearings and have yet to ever come across this. I can see where the two sections are contradictory, but would probably opt for the joint liability unless the R/O can adequately identify the driver who should be solely responsible.

- Carl

She was cited for parking in a handicapped spot. However,

1) The car was not "parked", it was stopped, engine running and in gear

2) It was not in a handicapped spot. It was on the opposite side of the handicapped spot with white slashed lines (not blue).

3) The cop identified the driver on the ticket!! Don't need much more proof than that!!

 

[CdwJava]

She was cited for parking in a handicapped spot. However,

1) The car was not "parked", it was stopped, engine running and in gear

Still parked for purposes of the section ... unless cited for a municipal code that defines stopped, standing or parking differently than the CVC.

2) It was not in a handicapped spot. It was on the opposite side of the handicapped spot with white slashed lines (not blue).

Then it depends on the section cited.

3) The cop identified the driver on the ticket!! Don't need much more proof than that!!

Yes, but it is a PARKING cite, or a moving cite? One is filed with the city or municipal parking enforcement authority, the other with the court. Having the name of the alleged driver is not the same as having sufficient ID to pursue that person. A parking enforcement person writing "driver was Jim California" doesn't tell me much.

Here is the section:

22507.8. (a) It is unlawful for any person to park or leave
standing any vehicle in a stall or space designated for disabled
persons and disabled veterans pursuant to Section 22511.7 or 22511.8,
unless the vehicle displays either a special identification license
plate issued pursuant to Section 5007 or a distinguishing placard
issued pursuant to Section 22511.55 or 22511.59.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to obstruct, block, or otherwise
bar access to those parking stalls or spaces except as provided in
subdivision (a).
(c) It is unlawful for any person to park or leave standing any
vehicle, including a vehicle displaying a special identification
license plate issued pursuant to Section 5007 or a distinguishing
placard issued pursuant to Section 22511.55 or 22511.59, in either of
the following places:
(1) On the lines marking the boundaries of a parking stall or
space designated for disabled persons or disabled veterans.
(2) In any area of the pavement adjacent to a parking stall or
space designated for disabled persons or disabled veterans that is
marked by crosshatched lines and is thereby designated, pursuant to
any local ordinance, for the loading and unloading of vehicles parked
in the stall or space.
(d) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) apply to all offstreet parking
facilities owned or operated by the state, and to all offstreet
parking facilities owned or operated by a local authority.
Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) also apply to any privately owned and
maintained offstreet parking facility.​

Hopefully your friend goes in and 'fesses up to who this other driver was ... otherwise, I suspect they will hold her jointly accountable pursuant to 40200.


- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

Still parked for purposes of the section ... unless cited for a municipal code that defines stopped, standing or parking differently than the CVC.

I'm not sure how you call sitting in a car, engine running and in gear to be "parked". By this logic, I am "parked" each time I come to a stop sign.

Yes, but it is a PARKING cite, or a moving cite? One is filed with the city or municipal parking enforcement authority, the other with the court. Having the name of the alleged driver is not the same as having sufficient ID to pursue that person. A parking enforcement person writing "driver was Jim California" doesn't tell me much.

It is a Parking Cite. I'm not sure how the cop writing the "driver was Jim California" doesn't speak volumes. It says clearly that the RO is NOT responsible as she was not operating the vehicle at the time. The cop got the driver's name from his driver's license. So, if he didn't retrieve enough information to pursue that person, then that's just tough.

Here is the section:

22507.8. (a) It is unlawful for any person to park or leave
standing any vehicle in a stall or space designated for disabled
persons and disabled veterans pursuant to Section 22511.7 or 22511.8,
unless the vehicle displays either a special identification license
plate issued pursuant to Section 5007 or a distinguishing placard
issued pursuant to Section 22511.55 or 22511.59.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to obstruct, block, or otherwise
bar access to those parking stalls or spaces except as provided in
subdivision (a).
(c) It is unlawful for any person to park or leave standing any
vehicle, including a vehicle displaying a special identification
license plate issued pursuant to Section 5007 or a distinguishing
placard issued pursuant to Section 22511.55 or 22511.59, in either of
the following places:
(1) On the lines marking the boundaries of a parking stall or
space designated for disabled persons or disabled veterans.
(2) In any area of the pavement adjacent to a parking stall or
space designated for disabled persons or disabled veterans that is
marked by crosshatched lines and is thereby designated, pursuant to
any local ordinance, for the loading and unloading of vehicles parked
in the stall or space.
(d) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) apply to all offstreet parking
facilities owned or operated by the state, and to all offstreet
parking facilities owned or operated by a local authority.
Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) also apply to any privately owned and
maintained offstreet parking facility.​

Hopefully your friend goes in and 'fesses up to who this other driver was ... otherwise, I suspect they will hold her jointly accountable pursuant to 40200.


- Carl

I guess I am still having a hard time accepting that sitting in a car, engine running and in gear to be defined as "parked" or "left standing".

This is where our differences are very clear. We are both biased. While I think we both contribute good information, mine is biased towards the defendant and yours if biased towards the State. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this turns out.

 

[Zigner]

I'm not sure how you call sitting in a car, engine running and in gear to be "parked". By this logic, I am "parked" each time I come to a stop sign.



It is a Parking Cite. I'm not sure how the cop writing the "driver was Jim California" doesn't speak volumes. It says clearly that the RO is NOT responsible as she was not operating the vehicle at the time. The cop got the driver's name from his driver's license. So, if he didn't retrieve enough information to pursue that person, then that's just tough.



I guess I am still having a hard time accepting that sitting in a car, engine running and in gear to be defined as "parked" or "left standing".

This is where our differences are very clear. We are both biased. While I think we both contribute good information, mine is biased towards the defendant and yours if biased towards the State. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this turns out.

Jim -

You are slipping. Have you even CHECKED the definition of parking?

 

[CdwJava]

I'm not sure how you call sitting in a car, engine running and in gear to be "parked". By this logic, I am "parked" each time I come to a stop sign.

You cannot park or leave standing a vehicle on those hatched marks unless you are discharging a passenger and have the requisite plate or placard. The definition is quite clear.

It is a Parking Cite. I'm not sure how the cop writing the "driver was Jim California" doesn't speak volumes. It says clearly that the RO is NOT responsible as she was not operating the vehicle at the time. The cop got the driver's name from his driver's license. So, if he didn't retrieve enough information to pursue that person, then that's just tough.

And, if the city chooses to hold the R/O responsible pursuant to 40200, I guess that's "tough", too. They may opt to say the officer should have gotten more information ... on the other hand, they may not.

I guess I am still having a hard time accepting that sitting in a car, engine running and in gear to be defined as "parked" or "left standing".

What would YOU call it?

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.​

Some sections further define this.

Leaving a car on, with the engine running, in a parking space, is leaving it standing.

As a parking citation is handled by an administrative board or hearing officer, they are certainly free to decide the matter based on any criteria they please. They may choose to go after the other driver for the fine ... but, I suspect they will ask for something a little more than a name. if not, then that's their decision. The R/O can certainly appeal it, and then take it to court if they choose to.

- Carl

- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

You cannot park or leave standing a vehicle on those hatched marks unless you are discharging a passenger and have the requisite plate or placard. The definition is quite clear.

As I said before, it wasn't in a handicapped parking area.

And, if the city chooses to hold the R/O responsible pursuant to 40200, I guess that's "tough", too. They may opt to say the officer should have gotten more information ... on the other hand, they may not.

Well... I guess that is the attitude of the State bias. If the Government chooses to hold someone responsible, then that's just tough, even if it is contrary to the law (40215)

As a parking citation is handled by an administrative board or hearing officer, they are certainly free to decide the matter based on any criteria they please. They may choose to go after the other driver for the fine ... but, I suspect they will ask for something a little more than a name. if not, then that's their decision. The R/O can certainly appeal it, and then take it to court if they choose to.

- Carl

I guess that's where we really disagree. You say they decide a matter based on any criteria they please, I say their criteria is the law.

 

[CdwJava]

As I said before, it wasn't in a handicapped parking area.

The slashed lines are also covered in the section - see above.

Well... I guess that is the attitude of the State bias. If the Government chooses to hold someone responsible, then that's just tough, even if it is contrary to the law (40215)

That nasty little "joint" liability section of 40200 gives some leverage for that argument.

I guess that's where we really disagree. You say they decide a matter based on any criteria they please, I say their criteria is the law.

And the law seems to go both ways on the issue.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Note that 40215 requires an INITIAL hearing to be initiated by the person receiving the citation. It is at THAT special hearing that the responsibility may be argued:

40215. (a) For a period of 21 calendar days from the issuance of a
notice of parking violation or 14 calendar days from the mailing of a
notice of delinquent parking violation, a person may request an
initial review of the notice by the issuing agency.​

If no such hearing has yet been held, then 40200 will apply.

- Carl