"cabarne4" (cabarne4)
03/12/2015 at 19:15 • Filed to: None
26
16|
"cabarne4" (cabarne4)
03/12/2015 at 19:15 • Filed to: None | 26
| 16 |
So my roommate borrowed the truck that I was borrowing from a friend, in order to run an errand in town (this was like 2 weeks ago). He parked in one of the municipal lots outside of downtown, but accidentally parked in a space reserved for overnight Amtrak parking.
Came back to find a $35 parking ticket under the wiper.
I really didn't want to part ways with $35 (hey, that's beer money!), and I had nothing better to do at 3pm on a Thursday, so I contested the ticket and took it to court. I was cited for city code 9-01-001-0008(C). !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
Section 8, paragraph C, reads: "It shall be unlawful to park any vehicle in any municipal parking lot in violation of this title, or to park contrary to the signs or regulation established by the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to paragraph B above." (Paragraph B essentially says that the city traffic engineer has the right to establish signs and regulations to govern municipal parking lots).
The judge said that it seemed pretty simple, and sounded like I was in violation of the code. I pulled out my printed out copy, and read the next paragraph aloud (Section 8, Paragraph D):
The penalty for violating Section C above shall be that prescribed in Section 9-01-001-0003 (N) or as provided in Section 9-01-001- 0006 (E), whichever is applicable. (Ord. 1564, 6/7/88)
The judge asked me where I was going with this.
Section 6, paragraph E reads:
A violation of this section shall constitute a civil traffic violation and be punishable by the imposition of at least the minimum fine specified in A.R.S. §28-885 . . .
(Emphasis mine. There's more, but I didn't feel like copying the whole thing).
The judge said that it seemed pretty clear. I said that the key words there were "of this section." Section 6 deals with "Parking areas reserved for persons with physical disabilities" (i.e., handicapped spaces). Therefor, Section 6, Paragraph E does not apply to this case. He then asked me about Section 3, Paragraph N.
It doesn't exist.
Section 3 ends with paragraph M. The judge flipped through my printed pages for a few minutes, reread the city codes to himself a few times, then asks the officer if she knew about this. The officer stammers for a bit, and then explains that the signs have been in place for over 6 years, and that is how her sergeant has instructed officers to site violators. Judge tells her that's not how the law works, and the letter of the law must be upheld.
Judge dismisses the ticket.
Here's a picture of my FR-S working at a racetrack for your time:
bob and john
> cabarne4
03/12/2015 at 19:19 |
|
ROFL.
CB
> cabarne4
03/12/2015 at 19:21 |
|
Hah. Well done.
For Sweden
> cabarne4
03/12/2015 at 19:28 |
|
Paging PatBateman
Brian Silvestro
> cabarne4
03/12/2015 at 19:31 |
|
rekt
AthomSfere
> cabarne4
03/12/2015 at 19:36 |
|
I love it!
|
cabarne4
> For Sweden
03/12/2015 at 19:43 |
|
Afterwards, judge was like "Yeah, that... works. This is a deal for the city attorney. Not my problem!"
Sean W
> cabarne4
03/12/2015 at 20:14 |
|
A+
rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
> cabarne4
03/12/2015 at 20:35 |
|
Sounds like you should be telling some local journo's about this - maybe it can get printed in the local paper. Of course it's likely that the local codes will be amended, but at least then a person that reads them will have a fighting chance to figure out what's going on.
|
cabarne4
> rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
03/12/2015 at 20:37 |
|
I'm just going to continue parking in the Amtrak spaces, out of defiance. :D
|
rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
> rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
03/12/2015 at 20:40 |
|
Also: what's weird is the "N" is not just a typo for "M" or anything else that I can see. I guess they meant "I" but that's far away from N on my keyboard. (Note: I'm a lawyer, but if anyone is reading this I'm not *your* lawyer, nor am I licensed to practice in AZ, nor am I Lehto or anyone else who deals with automotive stuff. I am a lawyer who feels like laws - especially those that apply to normal everyday gov't interactions like this one - are far too complicated.)
|
rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
> cabarne4
03/12/2015 at 20:41 |
|
I'd watch out for part (J) of the penalties code, which deals with immobilization and impoundment. :)
|
cabarne4
> rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
03/12/2015 at 20:50 |
|
Personally, I think (N) was accidentally omitted. It would've probably been cut and paste from 0006(E). (E) is written generically enough (violating THIS section), that you could change it to 0003(N) and it would work perfectly.
But that's just speculation.
As for your note on (J), under which section? I didn't bother reading past the relevant parts. Haha... Roommate was only parked for an hour when he got the ticket.
Edit to add: My oldest brother is a lawyer (barred in NY and KY, unfortunately). I found the loophole myself, ran it by him when I found it. His response was along the lines of "...that could potentially work."
Edit x2: Found part J. Interesting there's no time limit on immobilization. Really seems to be up to the officer's discretion.
pip bip - choose Corrour
> cabarne4
03/13/2015 at 06:10 |
|
well played sir!
i salute you.
Bryan doesn't drive a 1M
> cabarne4
03/13/2015 at 11:15 |
|
Heroic!
|
cabarne4
> Bryan doesn't drive a 1M
03/14/2015 at 02:06 |
|
Yeah, the officer's reaction was hilarious.
So in the back of the courtroom were about 8 "Police Volunteers" (old locals who have nothing better to do but write parking tickets). After the fact, they all congratulated me, and asked how the hell I did it / knew what to do.
I was just like, "Not that difficult. I come from a family of lawyers. Took me literally 5 minutes of research to find the issue with the law — you just have to pay close attention to the wording." (the judge tried to apply 0006(E) to the cited offense [0009(C)]. I clarified that 0006(E) specifically stated *this section*, which means that it only applies to section 0006, which is specific to handicapped spaces).
Really, my "forum lawyer" advice for anyone — research, research, research. Pay VERY close attention to the wording of what you've been cited for, and any related sections / paragraphs.
Side note to the story: The original citation also had a few admin errors. (Wrong year and model written down. The officer wrote "2015 Toyota Tacoma". The truck is a 1988 Toyota Pickup). An apparent sexual slur in the "Other Vehicle Identification" section (while I'm sure the officer meant to write "gray", she wrote "gay" instead. I take serious offense to that). On the paperwork I had to fill out to contest the ticket, I actually mentioned both of those facts as well as the incorrect code cited.
I decided not to argue either of those points (was originally planning on bringing it up just for the fun of it, but decided it wasn't worth my time). In most cases, admin errors (i.e. wrong year / make / model, transposed digits on license and/or license plate, or misspelled names / addresses) will NOT get you out of a ticket. The judge will chalk it up to a "clerical error" and let it slide. So anyone who tells you "Oh, they misspelled your name! It's not valid!" is wrong. As for the "gray / gay" comment, I could have tried to press for something ridiculous (sexual harassment claim or something), but the officer seemed nice and professional enough to not try and screw her over. Judge would've probably made some comment like "Well, she obviously meant 'gray'...", to which I would have responded "Your honour, this is an officer of the law... not a Kindergardener. That's not acceptable." Would've been funny to hear in court, but decided to show her a small amount of respect... after all, she's just doing her job.
On that note: Everyone in the process is doing their job. For example, if you're being sued, the "enemy's" attorney has nothing against you. They're just being paid to try and win. Same goes for the judge, bailiff, and everyone else involved (well, asides from whoever is pressing charges against you). In traffic court, the officer has nothing personal against you — it's just their job to cite people they find breaking the law, and they've got to follow up and go to court if you contest the ticket. They could care less if you win or lose, and are indifferent about being in the courthouse (after all, it's just another part of their job). So, keep emotions out of it. Speak calmly, say what you have to say (nothing more or nothing less), and remind yourself of your fifth amendment rights (no self-incrimination. You don't have to answer questions that could harm your case). If you're bad with stuttering / "ummm's", or anything else, then practice, practice, practice before going to court. Have an idea of what you want to say, and don't try to rush through your words.
NotUnlessRoundIsFunny
> cabarne4
04/15/2015 at 00:41 |
|
Well done!