Re: The case of the $900 parking ticket (Long)

Roger Shoaf wrote:
"Dave Smith" <adavidsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4637410E.718720F3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

haven't you figured out yet that the cop became belligerent and petty in
response to the belligerence and pettiness steaming from mr shoaf.
I figured that out early in the first post. He has created an expensive
problem for himself, but he may come out of it unscathed if they have a
decent justice system there, one what will recognize that the cop had no
right to demand a licence and insurance for a parking violation.


Belligerent? Me? I was nice as can be until we got to the ticket writing,
and then and only then did I start to make refusals. There is no legal
requirement for me to provide a home address, and the cop had not told me he
was writing a moving violation, so I had no idea until after the ticket was
already written. I do not hold a high opinion of this particular policeman,
but my attitude was not the reason for the irregular nature of the charge.



a parking citation is not a moving violation. There are lots of those: illegal lane change, speeding, interfering with orderly flow of traffic, aggressive driving, tailgating, reckless driving, DUI, driving unsafe equipment, not having proof of insurance, expired tags. Which did he charge you with? Or did he write it out in longhand: speeding while illegally parked? Methinks there's something you are not owning up to here.


Then he goes into the courthouse, apparently without calling first to
set the court date, and gets mouthy with the real power of the
courthouse, the booking clerk.
That is not what I understood. He said that he was told he did not have to
go to court, that he could pay it out of court, so I got the impression
the
first ticket had a court date and that was the one he went to court on,
but
that they was a later amendment. He was served with a ticket for a
violation with a court date. I don't know about the local law where this
happened, but you can't do that here. Once a charge has been initiated and
person charged you can't just void it and start over again.


For the sake of clarity, the first ticket had a court date of March 5th and
I appeared as agreed. I may have been guilty of imploring the court clerk
to put me on the callendar, but I was nice up until the head clerk started
telling me that somehow she was in a position to demand that I return in the
event the charge was filled after the date I had agreed to appear.

In no state or county that I know of--and I have almost 21 years' experience driving all lower 48--is a cop permitted to set court dates, obligating judge, clerks, bailiff, other cops, witnesses, et al, to put all other cases aside to work on this one case. Methinks that march 5 was a "respond by" date. Misunderstanding, you showed up. The clerk tried to be helpful, tried to set a future date for you. But in your anger you refused to hear her explanation.


Only then did I allow a bit of scarcasm to rise to the surface. IIRC my
exact words were "Mam, if they file the ticket after the date that I have
agreed to appear, just how does this become my problem?" When I didn't get
an answer to my question from the person forwarding the ridiculous
proposition, my next course of action was to assure that the matter would
not escalate into one of those unintended consequence things so I informed
her that "It appears we disagree, and you are refusing my offer to fulfil my
obligation by appearing in court as agreed, I will go then but I will send a
letter to document my attempt." She stated that I didn't have to do that,
and then I stated that yes I did.


the defendant doesn't set his own court date; he can request a certain date, but if the calendar is full on that date, sorry, if you want that day in court it will have to be on their terms.


The first loss of civility was when I took a couple of steps away and
realized it would be helpful to get the name of the clerk and upon inquiry
she refused to give me her last name. I considered this a very rude
position from someone that as an occupation works for a court of record and
each time a document is filled she signs her name in attesting to the
document. Having my dander up, that is when I asked the question about how
they would act if I walked into their office and refused to give my last
name when seeking to do business there. If this is construed as being a
smart ass then so be it, but I really was intent on burning into her memory
our meeting so if fo instance I was sometime charged with a willful failure
to appear there would be a clear indellable memory of my attempt.

Her first reaction was this could get her in trouble, and for a moment she went into protective mode.


That notice to appear? did it arrive by mail after you phoned in demanding a hearing? no? it was on the ticket? Forgive me, but that is doubtful.


But, giving you the benefit of *innocent till proven guilty*.... Continuances are granted all the time, for a variety of reasons. And all sides must comply. Maybe the date was changed and, since no one figured anyone--least of all a truck driver--would bother with a $35 ticket-- she failed to call your cellphone--What? you weren't required to give out that personal information, so you didn't? Or, just maybe, she called or mailed the notice of continuance to your house and you weren't there to get it. Not her fault; she didn't choose a trucking career for you. The tide of court turn on itself for no man. A judge (or his clerk) decides, and we comply.



As I pointed out, it can go against either. Most truck drivers I dealt
with
had binders containing all the required documents. If a driver handed over
a binder full of up to date documents with everything but the valid
insurance I would assume that he had given me everything he had and if I
were going to lay a charge it would be the owner. If, OTOH, the driver was
being an ass and refused, the charge would go against the driver.

Dave, I do not know what the law is in Canada, but for the record my
impression of Canadian officials that I have delt with has been a favorable
one. Only one time was I flagged into a scale and when the officer found
that I was lacking a required permit I was plesantly supprized that I was
allowed not only to purchase it on the spot, but that he was happy to take
US funds.

The policeman in my story (and his dimwitted Chief,) however seems to lack
any knowledge of the California Vehicle Code provisions relating to
commercial trucks and the evedince of financial responsibility definitions.

Specificly the law provides:

16020. (a) All drivers and all owners of a motor vehicle shall at
all times be able to establish financial responsibility pursuant to
Section 16021, and shall at all times carry in the vehicle evidence
of the form of financial responsibility in effect for the vehicle.
(b) "Evidence of financial responsibility" means any of the
following:...

(d) For purposes of this section, "evidence of financial
responsibility" also includes any of the following:...
(2) The identifying motor carrier of property permit number issued
by the Department of the California Highway Patrol to the motor
carrier of property as defined in Section 34601, and displayed on the
motor vehicle in the manner specified by the Department of the
California Highway Patrol.
(3) The identifying number issued to the household goods carrier,
passenger stage carrier, or transportation charter party carrier by
the Public Utilities Commission and displayed on the motor vehicle in
the manner specified by the commission.
(e) Evidence of financial responsibility does not include an
identification number in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision
(d) if the carrier is currently suspended by the issuing agency for
lack or lapse of insurance or other form of financial responsibility.
======================================
The truck passed a random inspection about a month before and displayed the
current sticker on the windshield.

The truck was clearly marked with the CA# as referenced by subsection (2)
above.


So? again, I fail to see what the above insert has to do with the issue. That certificate of insurance? that's one element of financial responsibility, which your insert says driver must produce.


An
interesting thing I noted over my years in enforcement was that when I
encountered particularly obnoxious and uncooperative drivers, their
licence
records often showed one or more incidents of multiple attitude adjustment
charges. It was obvious that he had given the officers a hard time and got
the attitude adjustment.... fail to surrender licence, fail to surrender
permit and fail to provide proof of insurance, all three together.



While your observation that some motorists will get an "attitude adjustment"
and that it may very well be deserved, would you grant me the proposition
that from time to time some in the law inforcement business will get
overzealious and officious and require an "attitude adjustment" themselves?

and you, powerless you, are just the man to do it! Cost you about $10,000 in attorney's fees to get your meaningless satisfaction.


In this case it seems to me that there are miltiple issues I could raise
should I desire to retaliate against what I feel is an act of petty and
officious conduct.

To wit:

False arrest. The police officer had no grounds to make an arrest for a
parking charge when he arrived on the scene after the fact as it is not a
felony, nor is it wife beating or drunk driving.


oh? he put you in handcuffs, now, did he?


Perjury. Makinf an unqualified statment under oath when this is not true
even though the person making the statement believed it to be true is
purjury. The first amendment adding the failure to provide evedence of
financial responsibility therefore is purjury by definition.

were you qualified to put the cop under oath, there against the curb? forgive the sarcasm, please.


Get this: all drivers of all vehicles are required to produce evidence of insurance in states that require that owners of all registered vehicles carry liability insurance.


Subornation of perjury. The police chief's order to add the charge applies
here.

come on. get off this tangent. If your permit book contained proof of insurance and you refused to supply it, you should have expected to get a ticket for lack of insurance (written to the owner). Most states provide a window of time during which proof can be supplied and the ticket for the lack of insurance will be voided.


I also mentioned in an earlier post about the law that prohibits the
attaching of additional information to the citation that was not given to me
prior to the filing of the citation with the court. that is a misdemeanor.

You got access to records, did you, and personally saw a photo attached? You didn't? then *you* are talking hearsay. BTW, nowadays, photo and film automatically are part of the file--all evidence is. Likewise with a speeding ticket written due to radar. Discovery applies only when going to trial. Therefore, at this point, they have not violated any of your rights by not showing you the photo someone told you they have.

Get a lawyer, set a court date; a discovery motion will be filed by your attorney, then at a proscribed date before trial you'll get a look at any evidence they may present against you. Till then, this argument is rather nonsensical.

"Discovery" does not apply standing against a curb in front of a bank.



There are a few others I could toss in but I think you get my point.

I certainly get your point. You're pissed off, you essentially growled at the cop and cooperated reluctantly. Responding in kind, he piled on the charges. You measured dick size with the law and the law won.


I may very well ask for a meeting with the police chief and explain my
position and rattle my own sabres a bit, but I will probably stop short of
filling charges if I see the slightest glimmer of recognition that they took
a petty parking ticket and escalated this into an absurdity.

you do that. you go in there and make threats. Hopefully, he'll just roll over laughing. But in case he's in a bad mood, brother, you should pack a toothbrush. Better yet, go in with a $500 per hour attorney. YOU escalated it with your attitude: having the power, they used it.


The clerk of the court also might be in hot water should I press the issue.
If in fact I am correct that my obligation to appear in court was in fact
extinguished when I offered to preform, her subsequent threat to place a
hold on my license and submit to a collection agency a court judgement of
over $1200 for failing to appear. It seems to me this threat constitutes
extortion, and is actionable both in a civil and criminal action.

Attitude adjustments can work both ways.



Wait a moment while I stop crying. Failing to appear or pay the fine...is that how a $35 nothing ticket transmogrified into a $900 raid on your bank account? If you have already missed a court date and they have proof that attempts were made to notify you in a timely manner, then your goose is cooked, son....you have already tacitly admitted your guilt. Else, hire a lawyer with a $10,000 retainer and, as Dave said, "Go fo it." A casino doesn't refund your money no matter how loud you scream that you were cheated. Collecting money is what a traffic bureau does.


Next time just pay the damn $35 ticket and let someone with deeper pockets teach guv'mint a lesson.




--
*fas-cism* (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. -- The American Heritage Dictionary



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The case of the $900 parking ticket (Long)
    ... but my attitude was not the reason for the irregular nature of the charge. ... go to court, that he could pay it out of court, so I got the impression ... commercial trucks and the evedince of financial responsibility definitions. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: Extortion is here ( with new E bay rules)
    ... I take insurance as it is my responsibility to do so and do not charge ... Page is few years old and is from the era when you can do silly ...
    (uk.people.consumers.ebay)
  • Re: JUST MY LUCK!!!!!!
    ... doctors so far and not a word get to any of the 3 reporting agencies. ... play hardball until I said the magic words "insurance fraud" to them. ... charge, one of the choices for cause is "poor or unsatisfactory service". ... It's your responsibility to give up your ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Extortion is here ( with new E bay rules)
    ... I take insurance as it is my responsibility to do so and do not charge ... auctions" via the "about the seller" link. ...
    (uk.people.consumers.ebay)
  • Re: Worlds biggest turd
    ... an "explanation of benefits" from my insurance company. ... insurance would have to pay the full amount a doctor charges for ... I Have that's working on making hospitals charge everyone the same. ... the full price he takes them to court. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)