Parking Ticket - Can't Prove Who Parked It?

[gkisystems]

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

According to the city ordinance:

11.16.090 No parking from two a.m.--five a.m.
It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park such vehicle between the hours of two a.m. and five a.m. on street so designated in the table in Section 11.16.150 of this chapter.
(Ord. 1362 § 1(part), 1997).

Somebody I know got a parking ticket for being in violation of this ordinance.

QUESTION #1:
Assuming the case went to trial, how would the prosecution prove that the person (the car's owner) that got the ticket was also the "operator?"

QUESTION #2
What if the operator can prove that she parked the car before 2am? Assuming you strictly interpret the language, only operators who are actively parking the car between 2-5am would be in violation. Operators who park the car at 1:59am or earlier are not in violation.

Assume the defendent uses her 5th amendment right and does not testify against herself. Also assume that the defendent was not ID'ed by the police officer.

 

[FlyingRon]

This is most likely a civil citation so the fifth amendment doesn't apply, nor does the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Further parking ordinances usually assess the owner responsibility for any parking violations by anybody driving it.

 

[BOR]

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

According to the city ordinance:

11.16.090 No parking from two a.m.--five a.m.
It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park such vehicle between the hours of two a.m. and five a.m. on street so designated in the table in Section 11.16.150 of this chapter.
(Ord. 1362 § 1(part), 1997).

Somebody I know got a parking ticket for being in violation of this ordinance.

QUESTION #1:
Assuming the case went to trial, how would the prosecution prove that the person (the car's owner) that got the ticket was also the "operator?"

When an "unoccupied" car receives a ticket for a parking violation, it is a "prima facie" assumption the "owner" parked it. It is then up to them to appear and claim an alibi.

QUESTION #2
What if the operator can prove that she parked the car before 2am? Assuming you strictly interpret the language, only operators who are actively parking the car between 2-5am would be in violation. Operators who park the car at 1:59am or earlier are not in violation.

NO, that is wrong. It means any vehicle there between 2-5 is in violation, it does not matter when they got there.

Assume the defendent uses her 5th amendment right and does not testify against herself. Also assume that the defendent was not ID'ed by the police officer.

If the defendant remains silent, the court has every constitutional authority to "weigh" the evidence as presented. The owner will no doubt loose.

 

[gkisystems]

When an "unoccupied" car receives a ticket for a parking violation, it is a "prima facie" assumption the "owner" parked it. It is then up to them to appear and claim an alibi..

Do "prima facie" assumptions need to be written into law in order to be "prima facie?"

For example, having a BAC>0.08 means you are guilty of drunk driving regardless if you are truely drunk or not (people can have different tolerences for alcohol)...but the BAC limit is written into actual law.

If so and if this assumption is not specifically mentioned in the city code, would it not be "prima facie?"

NO, that is wrong. It means any vehicle there between 2-5 is in violation, it does not matter when they got there..

Yep, that's probably how the judge would interpret it....but it would be fun to try just for the heck of it.

If the defendant remains silent, the court has every constitutional authority to "weigh" the evidence as presented. The owner will no doubt loose.

This is scary. On cross-ex, the cop would clearly testify he did not witness the "operator" park the car but the judge could still find the owner liable.


Are there any good defenses to a parking ticket?

 

[justalayman]

Are there any good defenses to a parking ticket?

not a righteous ticket.

 

[BOR]

Do "prima facie" assumptions need to be written into law in order to be "prima facie?"

For example, having a BAC>0.08 means you are guilty of drunk driving regardless if you are truely drunk or not (people can have different tolerences for alcohol)...but the BAC limit is written into actual law.

If so and if this assumption is not specifically mentioned in the city code, would it not be "prima facie?"

I was speaking in general legal terms about how parking violations for unoccupied cars are handled. If it were not the case, all a person would have to do is say it was not them, case closed?

You cite a city ordinance. Try to look them up online, the ord.# law should have the STATE parallel code # as a reference?? If it does not, then try to find the parallel state laws on no parking, the time frame is not important. At any branch library where they have the WI laws, look up the state law # and there will be case law annotations after it. It may or may not describe the prima facie doctrine. The annotations are a syllabus/synopsis of the cases. To read the whole cases, a trip to a law library will be in order.

This is scary. On cross-ex, the cop would clearly testify he did not witness the "operator" park the car but the judge could still find the owner liable.


Are there any good defenses to a parking ticket?

An officer does not necessarily have to witness an offense to cite, MOST warrantless ARRESTS though have to be witnessed.

Defenses?? By showing up in court it proves "service was acknowleged", and to rebut it.. well..