The Neverending Confusion of donzoh1

[donzoh1]

Just so I'm clear here, you're saying that the issuing officer need not comply with the law. If that's not what you're saying, what is the incentive to do so? Oh, I know, most of them are perfect or nearly so, and none of them would ever intentionally not comply. Given that, there's really no reason to impose any sanction on them or on the issuing agency.

[cdwjava]

VC 40202 requires that the last four of the VIN be included on the notice only if visible through the windshield. There is no specific mention of the notice being invalid if the VIN is not included though it is implied through the language of "shall" ... but, if there was no attempt to look through the front windshield there may be some question as to whether the section was complied with.

It nshould also be noted that per VC 40215(c)(5) the proper notice shall be prima facie evidence of the violation. The only argument might be whether or not the lack of a VIN means that the notice is not proper.

Given that parking cites are generally resolved through an admin process that can be rather subjective, I would guess that prevailing solely on an argument of a defective notice would not prevail. However, a judge may be of a different opinion in such a case. Whether it is worth appealing a parking ticket to that point or not is up to the individual. Taking the time off of work might cost more than the fine, so it may be a judgement call unless we are talking about a handicapped parking cite.

[CourtClerk]

Ya know? If someone is parked in a red zone, sees a parking enforcement officer writing them a ticket and then pulls off.... the ticket comes in the mail - with no VIN because they pulled off. It happens.

[donzoh1]

Ya know? If someone is parked in a red zone, sees a parking enforcement officer writing them a ticket and then pulls off.... the ticket comes in the mail - with no VIN because they pulled off. It happens.

Then the ticket is not in compliance with California Law. A judge may or may not care about that, but there's no exception within the law for drivers who don't stick around long enough for the enforcement officer to get all the required information on the form. The hearing officer or judge may decide that under the circumstances, the citation is valid anyway.

[cdwjava]

Well, there IS the exception that states that the last four of the VIN shall be included unless it cannot be seen through the window ... kinda hard to see the VIN through the window of a car that is moving away. At that point, the hearing officer and the court (if it goes that far) can make the call.

[donzoh1]

Well, there IS the exception that states that the last four of the VIN shall be included unless it cannot be seen through the window ... kinda hard to see the VIN through the window of a car that is moving away. At that point, the hearing officer and the court (if it goes that far) can make the call.

If the enforcement officer states that the vehicle was driving away, but that he usually includes the VIN, I'm betting the hearing officer will uphold the citation. If the last 100 consecutive citations written by the enforcement officer have no VIN on them (the original copies) then I'd hope the hearing officer would dismiss. HOPE is the key word there. If not, there's no need to put the VIN on ever and we can just add this aspect of California Law to the others that are not complied with concerning infractions and citations.

[Mr. Knowitall]

We've already covered the VIN, and even if we imagine that the four digits do not appear on the ticket it's a non-issue. You should stop posting nonsense.

[donzoh1]

If the officer understands the law, it would be treated as a non-issue, as long as the vehicle can be identified from the ticket.


And as happens all too often, you're spouting nonsense.

Just so ya know, it't not nonsense just because someone disagrees with YOU. The VIN may or may not be an issue in this case. As a general matter, the last four characters in the VIN is an issue because occasionally, enforcement officers transpose numbers on license plates and thereby issue citations to the wrong registered owner. The legislature added that requirement as a protection for REGISTERED OWNERS when a citation is improperly issued. (You can't really determine the vehicle's identity initially using only the last four...that's why they have the rest of them.)

Why would it be a non-issue as long as the "officer understands the law?" Does it become an issue if he does understand the law? That sounds like nonsense.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Arguing a non-tenable position is the nonsensical part of this.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Just so ya know, it't not nonsense just because someone disagrees with YOU.

Right. It's not a matter of disagreement. Your position is nonsense because your position has been documented to be 100% wrong.

The VIN may or may not be an issue in this case.

It's not an issue in this case. That is, even if we assume without evidence that the VIN is not reflected on the ticket, it's not an issue because the courts have explicitly held that its omission is not cause for dismissal of the ticket. So, again, you are posting absolute drivel -- nonsense.