Contesting a Parking Ticket Under CVC 22500(A)

[eimmart]

I recently got a ticket for CVC 22500A, which states: Parking in Intersection: A vehicle may not park blocking a sidewalk intersection intended for pedestrian access. On the ticket, under comments, was: "Parked on curve". I THINK that the parking compliance person is saying I parked on the curved part of the curb, which is true. However, I wasn't blocking the pedestrian ramp.



I filed an administrative review to contest my citation with the following statements:
...Enclosed are photos of where the car was parked at the time of citation. As pictured, the car was not blocking the sidewalk intersection intended for pedestrian usage. Since this law does not require a parking distance from the sidewalk intersection and the car was not covering any area(s) of pedestrian access, I ask the Court to dismiss the citation in the interest of justice.

Unfortunately, all I got back was, "After careful review we have determined that the citation is valid. The information you provided, does not provide sufficient evidence to dismiss the citation."

I want to request a written declaration for a hearing to contest this citation further. The photo clearly shows that I was not blocking any part of the pedestrian access and I truly think this citation is in error. Do you think I have a chance in winning? What other information can I give to contest my citation if they did not accept the facts and the photos I submitted for review?

[cdwjava]

What you want, and what you might get are two different matters.

There should be a process for an administrative appeal or review of the initial decision. If not, you do have the option of taking it for a review by the court. However, if you lose at court, you could have to pay additional fees (usually about $50 I understand). Whether either of these appeals can be done by some written declaration, I cannot say.

Here is the section:

22500. No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle
whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid
conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a
peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the
following places:
(a) Within an intersection, except adjacent to curbs as may be
permitted by local ordinance.

Note that the section does not indicate that the vehicle must be blocking pedestrian access, only that it be within the intersection.

And here is the definition of an intersection:

365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongation
of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary
lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at
approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles
traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come
in conflict.

To prevail, you are going to have to show the entire area and demonstrate that this is NOT an intersection as defined in the CVC. Your photo seems to indicate that you are parked within the area bounded by the prolongations and as such, would be within the intersection. Given the image you provided, I am not surprised that they upheld the citation.

[eimmart]

Thank you for your response.

I actually got the definition of CVC 22500a from the http://www.sanjoseca.gov website as this is a citation in the city of San Jose. It differs in the definition from the DMV slightly in that it mentions the pedestrian ramp. Which definition would you suggest I use?

Also, I'm sorry but I still don't quite understand what you are saying regarding the intersection. Could you elaborate perhaps in lay terms?

[cdwjava]

Thank you for your response.

I actually got the definition of CVC 22500a from the http://www.sanjoseca.gov website as this is a citation in the city of San Jose. It differs in the definition from the DMV slightly in that it mentions the pedestrian ramp. Which definition would you suggest I use?

Also, I'm sorry but I still don't quite understand what you are saying regarding the intersection. Could you elaborate perhaps in lay terms?

The section in the California Vehicle Code is the applicable section and the one that the hearing officer used to evaluate the matter. It is also the section a court will use.

The easiest way to explain it without a diagram would be anything from the point where the road starts to arc is likely to be part of the intersection. But, I would have to see all four roads to tell you for certain ... though from the appearance, I'm pretty certain that you are parked in the intersection. Sorry.

[eimmart]

The street is a T-zone. Here's an image of the street via Google maps. My car is essentially parked on the same side as the silver BMW in the left of the photo. There is also a pedestrian ramp where the teal car is parked.

[cdwjava]

Arguably, anything parked within the arcing portion of the curb can be considered within the intersection.

Like I said, at this point you either appeal it pursuant to agency policy, or you seek to appeal it to court. The disadvantage of a court appeal is that if you lose, you get to pay at least another $50. Depending on the amount of the parking cite, it may not be worth taking off a half day from work and running the risk of an additional fee. Or, maybe it is ... that's up to you.

[eimmart]

Well, thank you for your input cdwjava. I really appreciate your time.

I am still frustrated that many people in the neighborhood park in that exact area daily and never get a ticket; I'll probably ask one of the parking compliance people when I see them around.

[NYI310]

I've had a similar thing once in San Francisco. I took pictures and mailed it in. Then I got a notice that the ticket was dismissed.

If San Jose also has a administrative review process where you can just mail it in, you should take a shot at that.

[flyingron]

Actually CDW, the picture appears to me to yield the opposite conclusion. Extending the curb lines of both streets would imply that none of what is shown in that photo is actually in the intersection (the intersection would be what is immediately to the right of the photographed area).

[cdwjava]

Actually CDW, the picture appears to me to yield the opposite conclusion. Extending the curb lines of both streets would imply that none of what is shown in that photo is actually in the intersection (the intersection would be what is immediately to the right of the photographed area).

Merely by saying he wasn't parked there and presenting only that first photo was not enough to prove his case. Hence the reason I said I was not surprised they upheld the citation (as mentioned in my first reply).

In my second reply I mentioned "arguably" it is within the intersection when parked on the arcing portion of a shallow curb as this one appears to be as an argument might still be made that it is within the intersection, and the second photo is from Google and does not pretend to show the actual position of the vehicle.

To prevail, the OP will have to diagram the intersection, show what is "the intersection" and show why his vehicle was not parked within it in violation of the code section.