Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

[SD Finest]

My question involves a traffic citation from the state of: Ca - San Diego Police Charged with CVC 4461 (C)

I was ticketed by a San Diego Police at the Qualcomm Stadium to see a Charger/Bronco football game.

Let me back up here just a moment so you know the facts before I got to Qualcomm. I am the uncle of 2 disabled children (Sarah and Scott). Both of these kids are in wheelchairs and have been disabled all there life. They are 22 and 18 years old now.

My sister originally was going to take the children to see the football game herself and had purchased 4 tickets to the game. Two of those tickets are wheelchair seats and the other two are companion seats right next to the WC seats. My niece (Sarah) got sick right before the game and could not go to the game, so my sister asked me to take her son Scott and she would watch Sarah at home. This is the reason I was driving instead of my sister.

So I drive to the game. I have Scott on board with 2 of his friends. We pull into the main gate. The parking attendant waves us through because apparently handicapped people do not have to pay to get into the parking lot. I was unaware of this at the time because I have never been there to use a handicapped spot. I pulled ahead a few feet more and was stop by a SD Policeman (Traffic cop). He asked me for my registration to the handicapped placard. I told him I was unaware of who it was registered to because this is not my vehicle but I have a disabled child in the back and that it must belong to either my nephew or my niece. Eventually I was able to find the registration to the placard and it turns out to be in my nieces name and not my nephew. The cop confiscated the placard, wrote me a ticket for misuse of a handicapped placard and kicked use out of the parking lot despite the fact that there was a handicapped person on board in a wheelchair. We had to park a mile and a half away from the stadium and as a result my nephew was forced to ride his wheelchair in the street (Sidewalks were not handicapped accessible) at night with a bunch of drunk charger fans driving crazy in the streets. My nephew was put at risk because this cop thought it was more important to write tickets than it was to provide public safety.

On top of this now I have to go to court because I was ticketed all because of a technicality of a name on a placard that belonged to his sister Sarah instead of Scott's name despite the fact that they both have been disabled all there life and the vehicle in question was a handicapped van with a built in wheelchair lift and is the primary vehicle used for both Sarah and Scott. This is so stupid it's beyond belief! How could the San Diego Police department be so cruel as to subject my nephew to this and jeopardize his safety? This is a complete lack of judgment in my view and it is all being done for the purpose of generating revenue for the city. That is what this is really all about -Making money!

My question is what probably cause did this policeman have in the first place to even stop the vehicle? I do not believe that just because I pull into a parking lot I waived my constitutional rights to be questioned or searched. I also do not believe that just because of a technicality of a name on a placard that this in anyway negates the fact that I still had a disabled person on board. This case is going to trial. There is no way that I would plead guilty to any wrong doing in this case. If there is any wrong doing that would be the San Diego Police Department.

[blewis]

Well, I can feel your frustration. However, you broke the law -- like it or not. CVC 4461 states:

4461. (a) No person may lend any certificate of ownership, registration card, license plate, special plate, validation tab, or permit issued to him or her if the person desiring to borrow it would not be entitled to its use, nor may any person knowingly permit its use by one not entitled to it.

(b) No person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may lend the placard to any other person, nor may any disabled person knowingly permit the use for parking purposes of the placard or identification license plate issued pursuant to Section 5007 by one not entitled to it. A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use the placard only while in the presence or reasonable proximity of the disabled person for the purpose of transporting the disabled person. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(c) Except for the purpose of transporting disabled persons as specified in subdivision (b), no person may display any disabled person placard that was not issued to him or her or that has been canceled or revoked pursuant to Section 22511.6. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

While you were, indeed, transporting a disabled person, it was NOT the person to whom the placard had been issued. In fact, your niece COULD receive a ticket for a violation of paragraph (b).

Now, you can rant and rave about "constitutional rights", "probable cause", and "generating revenue for the city" all you want. These issues do not change the fact that you violated the law and, bringing them up, will almost certainly result in your conviction.

But, and this is a BIG "BUT", violation of this statute is a misdemeanor. That means you will have a "criminal" record, if convicted. So, if it were me, I'd get over myself, admit I was wrong, be extremely contrite ("I didn't realize the placard belonged to my niece and not my nephew", "I'm very sorry -- because of my niece and nephew, I'm a huge supporter of special parking for disabled persons", "It never occurred to me that a placard might have been issued to one and not the other. I didn't know I was doing ANYTHING illegal", etc.) and try to negotiate a deal with the prosecutor to reduce this to a "parking ticket".

Barry

[SD Finest]

You sound like another dumb cop Barry. I will never take a plea deal in this case. Trust me when I parade my 2 disabled family members in front of a jury and make them testify. I think the jury will be more than sympathetic. It only takes one jury member to throw a mistrial. I would rather take my chances with a jury than plea guilty to anything. When you plea guilty you don't win you lose.

Secondly if the criminal justice system is so desperate to make money that they are willing to try people on a technicality than this case needs to be tried to show the jury what is happening in our court system.

Thirdly, Nothing justifies putting my nephew in danger as this cop did. It defies all logic. Public safety must always be our #1 priority!

There is something wrong with the system when people are being ticketed as a source of revenue as opposed to being ticketed because of the need for public safety. Traffic laws were not designed to help make money for city or at least they shouldn't be.

Here is a link to a report about how the police departments are ticketing people to make revenue for the city due to lack of funds from other sources or bad economy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490629,00.html

Drivers across the country, beware — a heftier fine could be coming to a dashboard near you. Faced with rising deficits and dwindling revenues, many states and local municipalities are turning to increased traffic and parking fines to fill their coffers.

In California, the cost of a "fix-it ticket" nearly tripled on Jan. 1, meaning that drivers in the Golden State can pay up to $100 for having a broken headlight — an infraction that didn't even garner a citation years ago. A bill approved by the state Legislature raised fix-it fines to $25 from $10 and hiked surcharges on regular traffic tickets by $35. Parking tickets and court costs to attend traffic school also increased, by $3 and $25 respectively.

Motorists in Pensacola, Fla., saw fines for parking in front of a fire hydrant or in a fire lane skyrocket from $10 to $100 — a 900 percent increase — after the city's Downtown Improvement Board reportedly unanimously approved the hike earlier this month. Statewide, speeding fines also increased by $10 this month, along with an increase of an additional $25 for exceeding the speed limit by 15 to 29 miles per hour.

And in the Boston suburb of Malden, Mass., Police Chief Kenneth Coye urged officers to bring in revenue for the cash-strapped suburb by writing at least one parking or traffic ticket per shift.

"We need to increase enforcement in areas that create revenue … write 'ONE TAG A DAY,'" Coye told officers in a memo obtained by the Boston Herald.

Coye said tickets are crucial to maintaining quality of life, the Herald reported. He did not return several requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

According to a study in this month's Journal of Law and Economics, local governments like Malden use traffic citations to bridge budget shortfalls. Researchers Thomas Garrett and Gary Wagner examined revenue and traffic citation data from 1990 to 2003 in 96 counties in North Carolina, and they discovered that the number of citations issued increases in years that follow a drop in revenue.

They got the idea for the study when Garrett, assistant vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, got an exorbitant ticket for speeding in Pennsylvania.

Garrett likened traffic violations to a "hidden tax," like hotel occupancy taxes, that can easily be passed on to to out-of-state tourists.

"When times are tough, it's often harder to increase revenue through traditional means like increasing sales and property taxes," Garrett said. "And traffic tickets certainly fit that bill."

Critics complain that whereas property taxes are proportionally tied to property values, motorist fines are flat taxes that have a harder impact on lower-income drivers; the laborer going 80 mph in a 12-year-old Kia pays the same fine as the trust-fund heir going 80 in his brand-new Ferrari.

But the tickets generate needed municipal income, and that's why they're on the rise. Wagner, a professor at the University of Arkansas Little Rock, said there is a "significant correlation" between revenue and the number of citations.

"We don't know that someone's actually been told to go out and issue tickets for revenue, but if police are incentivized to step up enforcement, that naturally results in more tickets," Wagner told FOXNews.com. "More tickets were issued when revenues declined."

The study, "Red Ink in the Rearview Mirror: Local Fiscal Conditions and the Issuance of Traffic Tickets," also found no significant drop in tickets when revenues rebounded.

Wagner and Garrett said there's no reason to believe the findings don't apply elsewhere.

"The incentives aren't just in North Carolina, it could apply anywhere," Garrett said. "The results pretty much speak for themselves."

Bonnie Sesolak, development director of the National Motorists Association, said the study backs years of anecdotal evidence.

"It's been no secret that municipalities have always tried to fill their coffers from traffic citations," she said. "Once that money starts flowing in, it's really hard to cut it off."

While recognizing the need for traffic enforcement, Sesolak said the increased focus on issuing citations could spread officers thin in some areas.

"They're making lawbreakers out of people who normally aren't," she said. "Their manpower could be better spent in other areas."

And the trend could further disenfranchise low-income drivers who receive the same fine as drivers in higher salary brackets, she said.

"If they can't afford to pay their fine, they're still going to get to work to feed their families," Sesolak said. "They're going to drive regardless."

Barbara Anderson, executive director of Massachusetts' Citizens for Limited Taxation, said she found Police Chief Coye's memo "disturbing" and questioned why local police officers hadn't been issuing tickets with proper discretion all along.

"It's disturbing when you come to realize that laws many of us try to obey are not being upheld in any predictable way," Anderson said. "So then you ask, who does get picked on? What makes the decision when you're going to enforce the law?"

The American Trucking Associations, which represents more than 37,000 members, said its drivers back efforts to enforce traffic laws. "But legitimate law enforcement reasons, not revenue needs, should determine the nature and extent of those efforts," a statement from ATA read.

Meanwhile, Dennis Slocumb, vice president of the International Union of Police Associations, said he was unaware of any "concerted effort" by law enforcement officers to write more tickets during tough financial times.

"The IUPA remains opposed to any type of ticket quotas that might be considered by state or municipal employees as an effort to increase public revenue," a statement by Slocumb read.

Moving violations aside, more than a dozen states are considering giving police officers the authority to pull over motorists solely for not wearing their seatbelts. The states — including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia — must pass a bill with the governor's approval by June 30 to be eligible for millions in federal money, the Associated Press reported.

Ohio, which is facing a projected $7.3 billion budget deficit over the next two years, would receive $26.8 million if it enacts primary seat-belt enforcement laws to match those of 26 states and the District of Columbia, according to the AP.

"If there's a time to be more cautious, our results suggest that time is now," Wagner said. "But the smart thing is, if you want to keep your money, you should always obey traffic laws."

[cyjeff]

You sound like another dumb cop Barry. I will never take a plea deal in this case. Trust me when I parade my 2 disabled family members in front of a jury and make them testify. I think the jury will be more than sympathetic. It only takes one jury member to throw a mistrial. I would rather take my chances with a jury than plea guilty to anything. When you plea guilty you don't win you lose.

Secondly if the criminal justice system is so desperate to make money that they are willing to try people on a technicality than this case needs to be tried to show the jury what is happening in our court system.

Thirdly, Nothing justifies putting my nephew in danger as this cop did. It defies all logic. Public safety must always be our #1 priority!

There is something wrong with the system when people are being ticketed as a source of revenue as opposed to being ticketed because of the need for public safety. Traffic laws were not designed to help make money for city or at least they shouldn't be.

No, in this case, they were designed to make sure that people that shouldn't be using handicapped placards were penalized for doing so. I am sure that if this happened to ANYONE else illegally using a handicapped placard to get a great parking spot you would be CHEERING the police officer's diligence.

The fact that you didn't know this was the law is not an excuse. The fact that you don't like the law is not an excuse.

Here is what will happen. The judge will ask who was in the car. The judge will then ask who the placard was made out to. The law is very clear on this point, as Barry accurately pointed out.

The officer did not put your nephew in danger. Why did you not drop your nephew and his friend off before you went looking for parking? Why, if it was dangerous to walk on the sidewalk, didn't you call a cab? Why was your nephew's safety not your #1 priority?

Your nephew is a grown man. He is able to use his own judgment as to an untoward risk to his personal safety.

Lastly, this is not a technicality. It is the law. If you want to fight this, and Barry told you how, the way to do that is NOT to say how dumb you think a law that your niece and nephew use everyday is.

[SD Finest]

No, in this case, they were designed to make sure that people that shouldn't be using handicapped placards were penalized for doing so. I am sure that if this happened to ANYONE else illegally using a handicapped placard to get a great parking spot you would be CHEERING the police officer's diligence. Actually I'm not against someone getting a ticket for illegal use of a placard if they are actually intentionally misusing it. There is no ill intent in this case. I did nothing to intentionally misuse any placard nor did I ever ask to borrow or lend a placard.

The fact that you didn't know this was the law is not an excuse. The fact that you don't like the law is not an excuse. I never said this was a dumb law or the fact that I didn't agree with the law. I just think that police need to use a little more common sense when writing tickets to the disabled. I did say that I thought Barry sounded like a dumb cop though and his opinion reflects that of the officer who wrote me the ticket.

Here is what will happen. The judge will ask who was in the car. The judge will then ask who the placard was made out to. The law is very clear on this point, as Barry accurately pointed out. Actually the judge does not really ask questions. That is left for the attorneys. Also the judge does not get to decide the case. The jury does.

The officer did not put your nephew in danger. Why did you not drop your nephew and his friend off before you went looking for parking? Why, if it was dangerous to walk on the sidewalk, didn't you call a cab? Why was your nephew's safety not your #1 priority? [COLOR="Blue"][COLOR="Blue"][COLOR="Blue"]The police officer would not let anyone out of the car and forced us to leave through a gate that made it impossible to get back into the parking lot. We waited an hour just to get in the parking lot and it was almost full when we got there. We would have to go back to the end of the line and start all over again. Impossible! Secondly my nephew is in a wheelchair. It does not fit a cab very well. That why we have a handicapped van. Does that make sense to you?

Your nephew is a grown man. He is able to use his own judgment as to an untoward risk to his personal safety. Actually he's 18 years old and because he is disabled he is socially dysfunctional because he has not had many friends due to his disability. Something you obviously know little about. Try telling an 18 year old he can't go to the football game because we can't get close enough, on top of the fact that we spent $300 for tickets to the game. Be realistic here and stop acting like you know my nephew!

Lastly, this is not a technicality. It is the law. If you want to fight this, and Barry told you how, the way to do that is NOT to say how dumb you think a law that your niece and nephew use everyday is.

No I disagree, this is a technicality. It is simply a name on a placard and does nothing to negate the fact that I still have a disabled child on board. You have to understand the spirit of the law. Again I never said the law was dumb. But I do think it is a poorly written law that does not take into consideration the variable circumstances that can be involved in a disabled persons life. This is something only a person with a permanent disability or disabled family member can understand. Lastly Barry did not tell me how to fight this case. He told me how to kiss AASS, beg for mercy and plea guilty. That is not a viable defense to me. You never win by pleading guilty

I will keep this forum posted as to what the outcome of this case is. We will see if Barry is right or if I am right. Also why have you or Barry not addressed my original question of probable cause?. Police do not have the right to pull people over just to see if they are committing a crime. They must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed before they can stop someone for questioning. That did not happen in this case.

[SD Finest]

Here is another part of this story I did not tell you about. There were around 10 traffic cops that were stopping everyone they could. It was a ticket write festival. SDPD specifically targeted handicapped people. Apparently there's a pretty good pop in respect to fines for the handicapped. In this case it's a minimum fine of $250 or a maximum fine of $1,000 for 1st. offense. Also the more handicapped people they can kick out of the parking lot the more parking spot they can sell to the public at $20.00 per spot. This is something my public defender told me! You still think this isn't about making money for the city?

[cyjeff]

No I disagree, this is a technicality. It is simply a name on a placard and does nothing to negate the fact that I still have a disabled child on board. You have to understand the spirit of the law. Again I never said the law was dumb. But I do think it is a poorly written law that does not take into consideration the variable circumstances that can be involved in a disabled persons life. This is something only a person with a permanent disability or disabled family member can understand. Lastly Barry did not tell me how to fight this case. He told me how to kiss AASS, beg for mercy and plea guilty. That is not a viable defense to me. You never win by pleading guilty

You are missing the point.

You were using a placard against applicable law. There is no doubt there.

Therefore, your defense is not "I didn't do it" but, instead, "please, your honor, look at the total circumstance and grant me mercy."

This is a traffic issue. There is, typically, no jury in traffic court.

The judge WILL ask you direct questions... well, you or your attorney if you choose to bring one with you.

I will keep this forum posted as to what the outcome of this case is. We will see if Barry is right or if I am right. Also why have you or Barry not addressed my original question of probable cause?. Police do not have the right to pull people over just to see if they are committing a crime. They must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed before they can stop someone for questioning. That did not happen in this case.

Officers are definitely allowed to check the validity of handicapped placards outside of a sports arena.

You would be surprised at the number of people that will illegally use them to try to park close to the stadium for free.

[cyjeff]

Here is another part of this story I did not tell you about. There were around 10 traffic cops that were stopping everyone they could. It was a ticket write festival. SDPD specifically targeted handicapped people. Apparently there's a pretty good pop in respect to fines for the handicapped. In this case it's a minimum fine of $250 or a maximum fine of $1,000 for 1st. offense. Also the more handicapped people they can kick out of the parking lot the more parking spot they can sell to the public at $20.00 per spot. This is something my public defender told me! You still think this isn't about making money for the city?

Again, you would be surprised at the number of people that try to talk their way into the spots illegally.

Carl is our NorCal cop on the board. Let's wait for his input.

I will just end with this.

Fishermen go where the fish are biting. So do police officers.

[aaron]

Let me just say, if the problem here is what I think it is - there were two near-identical handicapped placards and you were handed the wrong one - I would hope that the judge reviewing the citation would dismiss the citation upon seeing the pair of placards. (These are the ones that hang from the rear view mirror, I'm assuming.) I agree with cyjeff that this is a "please look at the total circumstances" situation, but I personally find the total circumstances to be pretty compelling in favor of dismissal.

[cyjeff]

Let me just say, if the problem here is what I think it is - there were two near-identical handicapped placards and you were handed the wrong one - I would hope that the judge reviewing the citation would dismiss the citation upon seeing the pair of placards. (These are the ones that hang from the rear view mirror, I'm assuming.) I agree with cyjeff that this is a "please look at the total circumstances" situation, but I personally find the total circumstances to be pretty compelling in favor of dismissal.

I do agree that, presented in the right tone and in the right manner, a judge will probably let this one go.