Granting Authority to Issue Parking Citations on Private Property

[CPO_MK]

Hello all.

I work in Public Safety for a city in California. We get tons of complaints from frustrated residents in our mobile home park and apartment complexes about the Sheriff's Department's inability to issue Vehicle Code citations (other than handicapped or fire lane parking violations) on private property. We are currently researching possible ways to, by ordinance, allow private property owners the ability to grant authority to law enforcement to enforce the Vehicle Code on their property.

Currently, we are able to issue parking citations on request of the property owner to unauthorized vehicles, and any such vehicles may alternatively be removed by the property owner (at the cost of the vehicle owner). I have been doing some of the aforementioned research and discovered a couple of California cities (most notably Arcadia) whose websites seem to indicate that a property owner can make a request for other Vehicle Code violation citations to be issued, but so far it is unclear if it's for ALL CVC violations that could otherwise be cited on a public street, and it seems to be on a case-by-case basis rather than through a Letter of Agency type request. (I have emailed the cities and am awaiting clarification.)

In the meantime, does anyone here know if this is possible to do, and if so provide me some references (even if from out-of-state) that I could present to our Public Safety Manager and City Attorney? We would like to be able to allow property owners to grant authorization to our Parking Enforcement team and the Sheriff's Department for issuance of municipal code and CVC parking citations, and we would like to have it be through a Letter of Agency rather than on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately the Vehicle Code does not make it clear if this is possible to do, as it specifically mentions issuing citations on public property but does not seem to outright prohibit issuance on private property, nor address means by which such authority could be granted, at least that I have been able to find thus far.

Any feedback that could be provided would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

[Mr. Knowitall]

If you're really just talking about parking violations, you should set up appropriate community rules and lease provisions (implemented when leases are up for renewal or, for month-to-month tenants, upon proper notice), properly post the property, and have improperly parked vehicles towed consistent with the rules.

[CPO_MK]

Most of our apartment and mobile home communities already are properly posted to be able to tow. The issues that we have are that a) the manager or their agent must be on-site at the time of the tow, which if it's outside of office hours then that generally becomes a moot point, b) even when it is during business hours many of the managers/agents are quite frankly too busy to take half an hour or more out for each car to go be with it for the tow, and c) residents are increasingly frustrated that we can't cite but the managers won't tow.

Also, on the flip-side of that, our goal as a city is not to have everyone's car towed. Times are tough and our unemployment is nearly twice the national average, and among those who do have jobs the median family income is less than it is county-wide. Towing everyone's car doesn't solve the problem, as it just creates a bunch of angry, unhappy people who now have no means to get to or from that job. Instead, we wish to seek compliance (without undue penalty (by being able to issue citations for things such as expired registration, taking up two visitor parking spaces with one vehicle, etc. - we're already able to cite for handicapped and fire lane violations per the Vehicle Code). It's far easier for someone to pay a $32 citation than it is for them to pay $120+ for the tow plus $26/day in storage fees, starting with the first day. Our $32 citation doesn't increase for 21 days, whereas at 21 days a tow is over $650.

Since it's apparent to me that it is possible to do this (pass an ordinance allowing property owners to give CVC-enforcement authority on their private property to law enforcement), I'm just trying to find out how it can be done. I've exhausted nearly every other research avenue I have found so that's why I've turned to some of the more..."non-traditional" paths, such as this forum.

[aardvarc]

many of the managers/agents are quite frankly too busy to take half an hour or more out for each car to go be with it for the tow, and c) residents are increasingly frustrated that we can't cite but the managers won't tow.

Here in Florida, we accomplish enforcement of issues on private property via MOUs - most often to allow officers to issue trespass warnings at retail businesses (the malls) and apartment complexes (loitering teens/drug activity). For example, if you go to a 7-11, there is a sign posted on the store (provided BY the city) that reads, paraphrased: "city police officers are authorized agents to issue and enforce city ordinances on this property". To GET that sign, an authorized owner or manager signs a Memoranda of Understanding that basically makes officers authorized agents able to act on management's behalf - meaning the officer can issue a trespass warning without having to call the store manager at 2 am to get an authorized signature or permission. It saves the property owner from being contacted all the time, and it saves the officer time standing around waiting for that contact to occur (which can deter willingness to enforce). Win. Win.

BUT...Regardless of what might be able to be accomplished in the way of granting authority to cite via a Memorandum of Understanding or other official contractual vehicle, is the enforcing agency both ABLE and WILLING to devote the manpower that will be needed to meet the demand if such authorization is actually accomplished? You are getting a ton of calls now, when you're NOT able to provide such enforcement. Is the department aware of the exponential magnitude by which these calls for service will explode if such enforcement becomes possible and the residents become aware that they can call the PD/SO every time someone parks behind them for a few minutes in an apartment complex parking lot to schlep groceries inside, etc.? Are there new positions planned specifically to carry out such enforcement (paid for by the fine money, of course), or, is there a plan in place to use civilian patrols or community service officers to aid in such activities, rather than asking patrol units to jump from complex to complex for a good portion of their shifts? (Residents will be happy with the improved parking issue, but you don't want the REST of the city to see things like an increase in property crimes, or increased response times because patrol units are tied up with parking citations).

I'm not trying to shoot the idea down, only to point out that experience suggests that increasing enforcement in ONE area, with the same resources and manpower, comes at the expense of LESS enforcement in another area, unless that increase in demand is met with an increase in ability to respond (deployable assets). Once you tell those apartment complex and mobile home residents that they can now expect police reponse for private property parking issues, that's what they'll demand and they'll be no going back. Make sure someone on command staff brings coffee and donuts to the dispatchers.

So as you hunt for the legaleese to accomplish the intricacies of the jurisdictional issue to cite, be equally conscious to investigate the use of civilian parking patrol units (often part of a Citizens on Patrol or similar program) or other assets to meet the vast increase on demand for service that will result.

[CPO_MK]

aarvarc, thank you. We use Letters of Agency (instead of MOUs) to do that for City ordinances and Penal Code enforcement, such as loitering, skating/biking, etc. As far as the parking issue goes, we can do that on private property open to the public such as for retail establishments since the Vehicle Code gives us that ability in most circumstances. With private property not open to the public, we currently cannot but anticipate no difficulty in accomodating the increased requests for enforcement as the vast majority of our parking citations are issued by the City's Parking Enforcement team and our Community Service Officers that work out of the local Sheriff's Station. Therefore, while the deputies would have the extra tool in their box to use when dealing with issues in these multi-family complexes, and while they would have another option for proactive patrol when they are between calls and have a little "down-time," it's not intended nor anticipated that they would be the ones primarily dispatched to handle such calls for service since that normally comes through Parking Enforcement.

[aardvarc]

open to the public such as for retail establishments since the Vehicle Code gives us that ability in most circumstances. With private property not open to the public, we currently cannot

I suspect herein lies part of the legal issue; the legal definition of "open to the public" or "NOT open to the public". It may take some looking at the specific wording of various ordinances, as a parking lot at an apartment complex, assuming that it's not a gated community, is as open to the public as a retail establishment. Both are private property, which is made available for the convenience of visitors and their lawful activities. If there is some distinction being made between a retail customer parking on private property to visit an establishment versus a resident or visitor of an apartment complex parking on private property for similar lawful purposes, ironing out WHY (or IF) there is some legal distinciton could open some doors. If may only take a resolution of the city/county to amend current ordinances to language mirroring the applicable parts of the vehicle code to green light enforcement, especially if done in conjunction with a Letter of Agency. Doing it with BOTH of those things may be a way for the department to provide that increased parking enforcement in the complexes and mobile home parks who WANT that activity, while not mandating that they do it across the board to ALL complexes/parks - those who DON'T want the extra layer of service simply wouldn't return the Letter of Agency (because perhaps they already have their own methodology for addressing such issues, such as standing contracts with tow companies acting as agent, etc.).

[CPO_MK]

Exactly, that's what we want. We don't want to force it on property owners, but rather give them the option to allow it. I'm trying to find examples where it's been done before; still waiting to get a response from Arcadia PD (since I can't view their municipal codes online - broken links inside the code viewer) as to what they did. All the other examples I've found thus far either only address abandoned vehicles (for which we already have provisions) or are on a case-by-case basis, which is impractical for our purposes since we'd have to get a signed authorization for each citation - too much paperwork, too much effort for each cite, etc. Kind of defeats the purpose we'd like to achieve.