Parking Ticket With Improper Handicap Signage

My question involves a traffic citation from the state of: California

Hey all,

I'll spare you the excuses and everything else and get down to it. I live in a large gated community where parking is scarce. At 11:30pm, I parked a bit further down in an unfamiliar spot in my complex. I come out around midnight to go to the gym and I see a parking violation for parking in a handicap spot. BUT, here is my defense:

There was no signage depicting the profile view of a man in a wheelchair. No signage, nor evidence of any sign.

The lines and curb however were marked blue. There was also a sign painted on the ground. It being 11:57 pm, and with visibility being extremely poor, I did not see either when I parked.

Now, before the "Well that doesn't excuse/you should have known better, etc." I am not a jerk and would not have parked there otherwise. Now, I checked the VC 22511.8 (as others have stated here) and it says:

22511.8. (a) A local authority, by ordinance or resolution, and a person in lawful possession of an offstreet parking facility may designate stalls or spaces in an offstreet parking facility owned or operated by the local authority or person for the exclusive use of a vehicle that displays either a special license plate issued pursuant to Section 5007 or a distinguishing placard issued pursuant to Section 22511.55 or 22511.59. The designation shall be made by posting a sign as described in paragraph (1), and by either of the markings described in paragraph (2) or (3):

(1) (A) By posting immediately adjacent to, and visible from, each stall or space, a sign consisting of a profile view of a wheelchair with occupant in white on a blue background.

(B) The sign shall also clearly and conspicuously state the following: “Minimum Fine $250.” This subparagraph applies only to signs for parking spaces constructed on or after July 1, 2008, and signs that are replaced on or after July 1, 2008, or as the State Architect deems necessary when renovations, structural repair, alterations, and additions occur to existing buildings and facilities on or after July 1, 2008.

(2) (A) By outlining or painting the stall or space in blue and outlining on the ground in the stall or space in white or suitable contrasting color a profile view depicting a wheelchair with occupant.

(B) The loading and unloading area of the pavement adjacent to a parking stall or space designated for disabled persons or disabled veterans shall be marked by a border and hatched lines. The border shall be painted blue and the hatched lines shall be painted a suitable contrasting color to the parking space. Blue or white paint is preferred. In addition, within the border the words “No Parking” shall be painted in white letters no less than 12 inches high. This subparagraph applies only to parking spaces constructed on or after July 1, 2008, and painting that is done on or after July 1, 2008, or as the State Architect deems necessary when renovations, structural repair, alterations, and additions occur to existing buildings and facilities on or after July 1, 2008.

Being that there was no sign, and the VC states that there MUST be a sign and either marked lines or a cross-hatch, and the painted ground was in poor visibility, I am going to fight this. I took pictures right after and it's extremely hard to see. If not for my phone's flash as the only good light source, it could barely be made out.

That, plus the fact the the officer incorrectly wrote my address as #### Victoria Ave (very general, also incorrect) when I live on #### Victoria St. The "Victoria Ave" that he or she wrote on the ticket does not exist as confirmed by GoogleMaps.

I am planning to request a review tomorrow with pictures and this information. My question is - how likely is it that I will win this case?

EDIT: Also, should I take pictures of the same spot in the daytime? Or keep the night pictures so that the reviewing party can see my predicament?

Do you know when the parking stall was created? Was it BEFORE July 1, 2008? That date will come into play for part of it if those sections are at issue.

A sign of some sort would have been required even before that date. If there is no sign, then you should not be found liable for the offense.

Hey cwjava,

Thanks for the response. No, I do not know when it was created. I'm guessing I should ask the management office? I'm sure they would have records of that. I think that the (B) paragraph is null and void considering there's not even a sign to put it on!

Without a sign there would be an apparent violation of 22658 no matter when the space was laid.

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

EDIT: Also, should I take pictures of the same spot in the daytime? Or keep the night pictures so that the reviewing party can see my predicament?

---

Its actually an interesting predicament...

The fact that you live there, the fact that you walk in that proximity when you go to the gym... makes it less likely that this was the first time you saw the pavement markings!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Its actually an interesting predicament...

The fact that you live there, the fact that you walk in that proximity when you go to the gym... makes it less likely that this was the first time you saw the pavement markings!!!

---

I thought the same thing ... but, without a sign, the section is unenforceable. Parking there might be ignant, but it isn't unlawful.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Its actually an interesting predicament...

The fact that you live there, the fact that you walk in that proximity when you go to the gym... makes it less likely that this was the first time you saw the pavement markings!!!

---

After browsing this forum last night for several hours, I got a feel for how people respond sometimes when posters ask about tickets. I was waiting for the first person to throw stones...

I'll try not to start a flaming war here especially since cwjava was kind enough to offer advice, but consider this: You added absolutely nothing to this topic, and to top it off you did not fully read my first post which makes your assumption wrong. I'm even feeling generous go into further detail even though it is irrelevant to my question.

And I quote:

Quote:

---

I live in a large gated community where parking is scarce. At 11:30pm, I parked a bit further down in an unfamiliar spot in my complex.

---

"Unfamiliar" being the operative word in that sentence. My roommate happened to be occupying our assigned spot. So, I parked further down in an "unfamiliar" area. If I usually walked in that proximity then it would cease to be unfamiliar now wouldn't it? Also, if I simply wanted to park in a handicapped space I could've just used the unoccupied one in front of my building instead of the one a lot further down. I would have been able to save myself about five minutes of walking time. There are two electronic gates in my community and the one I use is in the opposite direction.

I understand this is the internet and I'm sure you guys get a lot of kids thinking that life is unfair and whatnot, but before you attempt to throw stones and make me look the fool - please be certain that you know what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

After browsing this forum last night for several hours, I got a feel for how people respond sometimes when posters ask about tickets. I was waiting for the first person to throw stones...

---

Hasn't happened yet...

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

I'll try not to start a flaming war here especially since cwjava was kind enough to offer advice, but consider this: You added absolutely nothing to this topic, and to top it off you did not fully read my first post which makes your assumption wrong. I'm even feeling generous go into further detail even though it is irrelevant to my question.

---

What makes you expect stones, and flame wars, and anyone assuming you are lying... and any sort of drama, really.. When you are here obviously, supposedly, telling the truth, and even if you weren't it has no effect on your claim (well, actually it does have a short term effect - but it does as you will see clearly in a bit)?

If my comment is meaningless, if it offered you nothing to think about, why care? You shouldn't feel guilty about any of it!

And I did read your first post, admittedly, I skipped over all the code sections. And I did read your second post... So now who's making assumptions?

Now, considering that parking enforcement can put you through the process of two appeals, one written and one in person and still deny your claim both times simply because they didn't like something you wrote in your declaration or another thing you said at your hearing? Yes, I realize the signage issue, and how it has no effect whether you intentionally parked there or not and all that jazz. But realistically, do you think parking enforcement can simply deny your claim simply because the guy is having a bad day?

You can bet your bottom dollar that they can deny your first claim, your second and leave you with the option of having to take the matter to the third stage, the court appeal.

So while you can look at my post as throwing stones, I look at it as Easter eggs... Save yourself some time and hassle, try to get the matter resolved in as little time as possible, don't give them a reason to randomly deny your claim, all of this can be accomplished by sticking to the relevant facts and offering nothing else.

So yes, maybe my post was intended to point out the discrepancies in your post, but do you think you were the first person to come on here to post something contradictory? And did my doing so -potentially- help you out or not? its a known fact that most people will say too much and somehow manage to screw themselves over. My bad for wanting you to be prepared!

This is what your appeal is based on; "Here are some pictures; pavement markings are faded; once you park the painted marking on the center of the space is covered; no posted sign; here is what the law says, now give me my money"!

Stick to the relevant facts. They don't need to know when you saw it, where you were walking to, what your roommate did or what you had for dinner that night.

So, now... is it my fault for not contributing anything to the topic, or is it you and your own self inflicted guilt trip that caused the drama? :sneakiness:

Why do people always assume the worst, I will never know!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Hasn't happened yet...




What makes you expect stones, and flame wars, and anyone assuming you are lying... and any sort of drama, really.. When you are here obviously, supposedly, telling the truth, and even if you weren't it has no effect on your claim (well, actually it does have a short term effect - but it does as you will see clearly in a bit)?

---

I expect it because that is what I've seen from browsing, not just this forum, by many others similar to this. I've read how several users close topics in disgust and how permanent members are quick to judge because they broke the law intentionally or not.

Quote:

---

If my comment is meaningless, if it offered you nothing to think about, why care? You shouldn't feel guilty about any of it!

---

My response is not evidence of my "caring". I like to type and I like to procrastinate, neither of which indicate my caring or guilt. You presume to know a lot from reading a few paragraphs over the internet. I, on the other hand, presume to know nothing about you. But from what you've shown me, I can tell you tend to presume quite a bit.

Quote:

---

And I did read your first post, admittedly, I skipped over all the code sections. And I did read your second post... So now who's making assumptions?

---

The comment was not whether you read my second post; the comment was referring to my first post and specific wording that I quoted. You apparently did not read it because I remember typing "unfamiliar area".

Quote:

---

Now, considering that parking enforcement can put you through the process of two appeals, one written and one in person and still deny your claim both times simply because they didn't like something you wrote in your declaration or another thing you said at your hearing? Yes, I realize the signage issue, and how it has no effect whether you intentionally parked there or not and all that jazz. But realistically, do you think parking enforcement can simply deny your claim simply because the guy is having a bad day?

You can bet your bottom dollar that they can deny your first claim, your second and leave you with the option of having to take the matter to the third stage, the court appeal.

---

Quite aware of this.

Quote:

---

So while you can look at my post as throwing stones, I look at it as Easter eggs... Save yourself some time and hassle, try to get the matter resolved in as little time as possible, don't give them a reason to randomly deny your claim, all of this can be accomplished by sticking to the relevant facts and offering nothing else.

---

...which I will do. That has little to do with this internet post. I was explaining something to -you-, not detailing exactly what I would write. At my job we frequently come into contact with LE, and I work with a lot of retired LE and military veterans. I'm no stranger to this side.

The thing is, you were not trying to help me "stick to the facts". You were trying to point out a discrepancy in my argument while trying to discredit me. Now, you attempt to turn it into a helpful post in order to make me think otherwise. I do not take you for a fool - why are you doing the same?

Quote:

---

So yes, maybe my post was intended to point out the discrepancies in your post, but do you think you were the first person to come on here to post something contradictory? And did my doing so -potentially- help you out or not? its a known fact that most people will say too much and somehow manage to screw themselves over. My bad for wanting you to be prepared!

---

I realize I am not the first nor will I be the last. The danger in this, however, is that now you're too quick to rush to assumptions. This time you were wrong. Instead of admitting your guilt, you attempt to transform it into something else. And no, your posts were not helpful to me. Had you said something along the lines of, "Make sure you stick to just the facts because your story may have holes in it." I would be inclined to agree.

Quote:

---

This is what your appeal is based on; "Here are some pictures; pavement markings are faded; once you park the painted marking on the center of the space is covered; no posted sign; here is what the law says, now give me my money"!

---

That's precisely what I intended my appeal to be.

Quote:

---

Stick to the relevant facts. They don't need to know when you saw it, where you were walking to, what your roommate did or what you had for dinner that night.

---

You again assume to know what my legal argument will be because I decided to expose the unimportant details to you as a response.

Quote:

---

So, now... is it my fault for not contributing anything to the topic, or is it you and your own self inflicted guilt trip that caused the drama? :sneakiness:

---

... I'd suggest the former. Why you believe I'd actually feel any hint of emotion from some anonymous face on the internet is beyond me. I can assure you - I do not. I just like to debate.


EDIT: Actually, I take some of what I said back. Your last post did have a helpful tip in it. I will mention that when parked on the space the center image is covered by the vehicle. I hadn't thought to mention that. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

I expect it because that is what I've seen from browsing, not just this forum, by many others similar to this. I've read how several users close topics in disgust and how permanent members are quick to judge because they broke the law intentionally or not.

---

So while you've made it clear in this long post that you have an issue with my making "assumptions", and while you've gone on this long rant explaining how you think that is wrong of me to do, and yet you yourself, and amongst several other wrong and paranoid assumptions, you assumed that someone will "throw stones" be quick to judge... etc and that is OK for you to do?

What makes you so special?

And for your information, while we are in the traffic forum, "breaking the law, whether it be intentionally or not" makes no difference as far as guilt or innocence. So you might want to go back and reread what you've read before with this new concept in mind.

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

My response is not evidence of my "caring". I like to type and I like to procrastinate,

---

I'll buy into you liking to type... The procrastinating part, not so much... So you might want to practice that part!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

You presume to know a lot from reading a few paragraphs over the internet. I, on the other hand, presume to know nothing about you. But from what you've shown me, I can tell you tend to presume quite a bit.

---

I presume to know a lot and more often than not, I am closer to the reality of the situation than not, whether you like it or not. its pretty simple and I already explained it... it is all based on the "reasonable man doctrine"... If it sounds UNreasonable, then I suggest you keep it to your self simply because it will likely hurt you more than benefit you. In fact, and although you have disputed the two "presumptions" I made, I am still 100% convinced that they are true. This, of course would not bother you nor make you feel any guilt... Or at least, that is what you have just indicated.

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

The comment was not whether you read my second post;

---

I decide to add that in there for extra measure... Simply because if I hadn't, you strike me as being the complainer type (not sure why :rollleyes:) and you would have been whining that I missed something there too, even though I didn't.

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

the comment was referring to my first post and specific wording that I quoted. You apparently did not read it because I remember typing "unfamiliar area".

---

No, actually, you're presuming, and you're wrong... I didn't miss it... I simply didn't buy it... In other words, yes, I presumed it was less than truthful, not genuine, and certainly not representative of anything that might resemble "reasonable"!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

Quite aware of this.

...which I will do. .... I was explaining something to -you-... At my job we frequently come into contact with LE, and I work with a lot of retired LE and military veterans. I'm no stranger to this side.

That's precisely what I intended my appeal to be.

---

You know, for someone who came here asking for help, you've split personalities and are now pretending you knew everything all along!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

I was explaining something to -you-, not detailing exactly what I would write. At my job we frequently come into contact with LE, and I work with a lot of retired LE and military veterans. I'm no stranger to this side.

---

See? You're too busy debating, arguing, nit-picking, complaining and pointing fingers, that you still lack the understanding required to proceed forward with appealing your matter.

FACT: This citation was not written by law enforcement. It was issued by parking enforcement.

FACT: your first appeal will not be reviewed by law enforcement. It will be reviewed by a hearing officer (not a peace officer) who works for parking enforcement.

FACT: Your second appeal will not be heard by law enforcement. It will be heard by a hearing officer (not a peace officer) who works for parking enforcement.

FACT: Your claim that you come in contact with law enforcement, at your job, and that you work with a lot of retired law enforcement and veterans, has little to do with your little dilemma here!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

The thing is, you were not trying to help me "stick to the facts".

---

Are you presuming again? Or do you know this for a fact?

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

You were trying to point out a discrepancy in my argument while trying to discredit me.

---

That is a possibility. But it is also possible that I was trying to point out a discrepancy, hoping it will help you stick to the facts... or I could have been trying to point out a discrepancy. and while I could care less if it helped you or not, but was doing so simply because I take you for a fool. Or maybe the fool thing is totally out of the question, and everything else applies... You really never know these days. And for someone who is complaining about other people's presumptions, you've managed to prove how wrong you are about many of yours!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

I do not take you for a fool

---

Smart choice!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

why are you doing the same?

---

Well, maybe not a "fool" per se... But for someone who claims he doesn't care, you're creating a lot of drama! And you continue to contradict yourself... If I were you, I would have stuck to the first two contradictions I correctly called you on... But no, you couldn't stop there!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

I realize I am not the first nor will I be the last..

---

OK.. So you admit that you may not be the first or the last to post something contradictory... And you're blaming me for doubting the accuracy or the truthfulness of the information you posted? Or are these contradictions part of the appeal you had planned prior to posting here?

So see? I was not “assuming” or presuming when I called you on contradictions. Yet you come back and denied them at first, and in the same post, you admit to doing them... In fact,... Here:

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

I realize I am not the first nor will I be the last. The danger in this, however, is that now you're too quick to rush to assumptions. This time you were wrong. Instead of admitting your guilt, you attempt to transform it into something else.

---

… not only in the same post, but in the same paragraph where you posted that you aren't the first/last to contradict yourself, you start about “assumptions in the next sentence, and you tell me I am wrong in the one that follows!

And admitting my guilt? Are you running a fever and are hallucinating or are you normally this goofy?

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

And no, your posts were not helpful to me.

---

Deny it all you want! I am neither charging you for my advice, nor am I expecting a thank you from you. I posted what I posted out of the goodness of my heart. You had no clue, and maybe you still are unable to understand the meaning behind my statements! Your issue, not mine!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

Had you said something along the lines of, "Make sure you stick to just the facts because your story may have holes in it." I would be inclined to agree.

---

I am not into beating around the bush; I say it like I see it. And frankly, while I was trying to be respectful at first, you are mistaking my kindness for weakness. Wrong!!! And while you sat there typing all that crap about what you presume I did wrong, you are making the mistakes you are trying to pin on me. Nice try... But instead of telling me what to post and how to say it, and instead of this long misguided and contradictory rant of yours, why did you not assume that I had good intentions, why did you not post a question saying “I am not so sure I understand the meaning behind your comment there, mind elaborating?” Get over yourself... I am not the one who came here posting questions asking what to do. That was YOU! And like it or not, you got your answers!

So whether you would be inclined to agree or not, the way I see it, “A lie by any other name is STILL a lie”, and I know enough to know that while I can please some of the people some of the time, I cannot please all of the people all of the time, and you seem to be the type whom I wouldn't attempt to please at any time.

You go out of your way to prove how short sighted and narrow minded you are.. Here is yet another example on how you can contradict yourself in two consecutive sentences:

First you say:

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

That's precisely what I intended my appeal to be.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

You again assume to know what my legal argument will be because I decided to expose the unimportant details to you as a response.

---

So your appeal will be “precisely” as I previously described it, and you straight up confirm that... And your next sentence is you pretending you have this grand plan that is “Top Secret”... And no, you didn't only expose he “unimportant facts” you poured your guts out along with your whole entire plan hoping someone will help you out!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

... I'd suggest the former. Why you believe I'd actually feel any hint of emotion from some anonymous face on the internet is beyond me. I can assure you - I do not. I just like to debate.

---

I will take your suggestion* under advisement.



Uhm... *Suggestion not acceptable!

You can act emotionless, but your credibility is already shot so what you say is not necessarily what you think or feel!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

EDIT: Actually, I take some of what I said back. Your last post did have a helpful tip in it. I will mention that when parked on the space the center image is covered by the vehicle. I hadn't thought to mention that. Thank you.

---

Oh, OK.. See my post was booby-trapped... That was the trap, and Mr. Smart (NOT) fell for it.

While it should really make no impact simply because it seems as if the missing sign is all that is needed for you to prevail, you still could not care about how making this claim will further impact your credibility. You claim you parked at 11:30 (oh, then you actually adjust that to 11:57) but who cares; you further claim that “with visibility being extremely poor, you did not see either when you parked”... So what you are saying is that you parked around midnight, at a time when visibility is poor, and whether either of those conditions or both really existed, any driver in his right mind would have his head lights on, yet you didn't!!!!

Oh wait, let me cover the other possibility... You did not pull in head first, instead, you backed into the parking space. So, again, anyone in their right mind would not back in anywhere without looking to see what is behind them, and when you are in reverse, your reverse lights should be on and as such, you should be able to see the center marking as well as the blue lines!

And how would that added point of you not seeing the center marking impact your claim? It won't!!!

It seems you're not only short understanding what people are posting here... Sadly enough, you are also running short on self respect!

Quote:

---

Quoting hiphopreigns

---

I just like to debate.

---

Its going to be pretty difficult debating with yourself... I am done in here!