Monthly Archives: June 2008
The Parking Ticket Geek On The Air Again
Hey everyone.
Listen to the pathetic droning-on of the Parking Ticket Geek this Friday night on Outside The Loop Radio.
It airs on WLUW 88.7 FM at 6:00 PM.
Ask The Parking Ticket Geek 6/20/08
Editors Note: This week’s episode of Ask The Parking Ticket Geek is the second of a special 2-part question. Mr. Geek answered the first part of the question last week, and the second part this week.
Deer Geek -
Yesterday, I received a parking ticket for*: “09-64-200(b) Outside Metered Space as designated by pavement markings”. I was in a parking spot on E. Superior that did not have a parking meter. You can see from the attached photograph that the car ahead of me has a meter. My spot (I’m the blue Honda) does not. I’m pretty sure I can contest this violation, since there are no “pavement markings”… right?
Interestingly, though, I got another ticket for the same violation SIX MINUTES LATER! What’s up with that? Is there a law about how often cops are allowed to ticket you for the same violation? It was a different officer for each violation..
Should I contest these separately, or together?
Thanks,
-Double-Bad
As far as the two tickets being written for the same violation, just six minutes apart, I have yet to find any law that restricts a cop(s) or parking enforcement officer(s) from writing an infinite amount of tickets for the same violation.
Being unsure on this particular subject, I e-mailed questions regarding this issue to Chicago Department of Revenue spokesperson Edward Walsh to see if he had any insight into this duplicative ticketing.
I posed the same questions to Mr. Walsh and he very kindly responded to both below.
“Parking enforcement personnel and other enforcement personnel generally do not issue duplicate violations within minutes of each other. That said, it is possible for duplicate violations to be issued if enforcement personnel miss seeing an earlier ticket (it may have been removed by the motorist) or believe an earlier ticket to have been issued for a different offense. Motorists should pay the first ticket (assuming they do not have a legal challenge) and then either contest the second or notify the Department of Revenue directly.”
“Personnel are trained not to issue multiple tickets for the same offense. Some code violations, like city stickers, allow the issuance of one violation per day. The code is silent on others, but motorists are generally protected by the same legal principles that guard against duplicate offenses. That said, the offense itself must be examined. A motorist could be ticketed twice for rush period restrictions–once in the morning and once in the afternoon, for instance–if prohibitions are in effect during two different periods. Further, a motorist overstaying a meter could, in theory, be ticketed for each period he or she overstays the meter.”
Of course, common sense should prevail in this particular case. Even if you lost the first ticket, a reasonably intelligent hearing officer should let you walk on the second ticket.
As far as contesting them together or separately, I think you should request hearings on both and have them heard at the same time.
At the hearing, you will normally (99% of the time), have all the violations you requested hearings for, heard at the same time and before the same hearing officer. You should be able to beat your first ticket. Then, you would just present the same case on the second violation.
I think your case is a winner. But, I want to be up front with you, that’s assuming your hearing officer knows the law and has a brain. I have been in front of a few intellectually challenged hearing officers recently myself.
If you somehow get a goof hearing officer and lose the first ticket, you may want to withdraw on the second ticket and go back to the main desk and ask for another hearing officer. But I also could argue that, if you lose the first one, fight the second one with the same hearing officer on the sheer stupidity of being issued two tickets for the same violation six minutes later. To me, in this case, each strategy could work.
I want to again thank Ed Walsh from the city’s Dept. of Revenue for weighing in on the matter.
Very truly yours,
The Parking Ticket Geek
If you have a question for The Parking Ticket Geek, please e-mail the Geek at: askthegeek@theexpiredmeter.com
If we publish your question, you get an Expired Meter T-shirt–FREE!
Local Blogger Fights On!!!
Jason, who writes on his blog, They Don’t Call It The Windy City For Nothing, has run afoul of the city’s Department of Hearing Administration and seems pretty pissed the city doesn’t seem to understand simple logic and reason.
This is not really much of a surprise as we have chronicled here how so many hearing officers don’t know the law or how to utilize rational thought.
But I’ll let Jason tell his story.
Jason vs. the City of Chicago
Anyone who knows me to any degree of knowing me knows that I think I know how be smarter than “the system,” which usually knows better. You know?
Take for instance, Jason vs. the State of West Virginia, pitting me against the state over a $120 unemployment check I collected after I stopped working at WVU. I ultimately lost that one when I mixed up the time of my Circuit Court of Marion County appearance, and was an hour late to an appointment with an unhappy Judge.
Then there was Jason vs. the City of Morgantown, where I attempted to avoid payment on outstanding parking tickets accumulated through college. I ultimately lost that fight when my Father, the registered owner of the car in question, demanded that the tickets be paid in full. Definitely a good move by him.
There was Jason vs. the District of Columbia, over a traffic camera nabbing the Mazda doing 16MPH over the speed limit in a residential zone near Columbia Heights. That battle was lost when my argument involving Physics equations was too far fetched to prove that my car couldn’t have been speeding.
Last year there was Jason vs. Jessica Manvell, who refused to be a willing part in Jessica vs. the City of Chicago, when Jessica’s car was ticketed for not having a City of Chicago parking sticker while parked on the street. That one didn’t even reach the planning and scheming stage, because, well, let’s put it this way – if Jessica was a cereal, she’d be Moral Fiber.
So now comes Jason vs. the City of Chicago, which, by most accounts, is a legitimate wrongdoing by the Chicago Department of Revenue, a.k.a. the parking ticket cops. Seriously, they wear big “Department of Revenue” jackets. The Mazda was harmlessly parked in its usual spot near the Metra train stop on Western Avenue for the day, unaware that street cleaning was to take place on that side of the block. Why was the owner unaware, you may ask? Because there were no damn signs on that block indicating the pending street cleaning.
Needless to say, I swung into full battle armor for this one, especially confident that I could win. I took pictures and immediately compiled a comprehensive report to contest the ticket. I would show you the lovely document, but it has my license plate in the pictures, so I’m not sure if I should expose that to the mercy of the Internet.
But much to my chagrin, the response arrived today that I would be held liable for the ticket, because:
It is the finding of the Administrative Law Officer that the information submitted supports a determination that the violation occurred.
What. The. Hell. My argument wasn’t that a violation didn’t occur, my argument was that there were no damn signs, which there weren’t, which my pictures show. There is even a box on the ticket response to select, indicating your excuse is that there were no signs.
So where does this leave Jason vs. the City of Chicago? Will Jason pay the $50 and give up? Or will he fight on, following the instructions quoted in the final paragraph:
You may appeal this order to the Circuit Court of Cook County within 35 days of the order date by filing a civil law suit against the City of Chicago.
Stay tuned.
I say go for it Jason. It will cost you about $100 to do so, but if you are correct in the law, and the hearing officer did not follow the law, your ticket at best will be thrown out or you get new hearing.
The hearing officers for the city of Chicago are notoriously lacking in knowledge of the law. No lie. I have fought many tickets and have found myself to have better knowledge of parking law than the hearing officers and often have to cite the law to them. So, the fact that you lost is not a surprise.
So, if you presented the correct evidence (photographs of the lack of signs) and the proper testimony explaining there were no signs, then you should probably win at the circuit court level.
But please remember, the judge at this level is only ruling on what occurred at the hearing and will not hear any new evidence at this point.
It takes a few months for the entire process to culminate, but it’s kind of fun.
And, if you win, you can request your $100 filing fee to be refunded and it will be.
Good luck Jason.
Hammond Approves Red Light Cameras, Amidst Legal Questions
Like the copycats they are, Hammond, IN is now jumping on the red light camera bandwagon, openly ripping off their adjacent neighbor, Chicago.
The Northwest Indiana Times reports this past week, the Hammond city council approved installing red light cameras at 6 intersections in Hammond.
However, the legality of such cameras in Indiana is already being questioned as Indiana has never approved this type of legislation to make it legal.
Gary, IN who is also interested in installing these money making machines, is investigating the legality through the Indiana State’s Attorney.
I guess we’ll half to wait and see. Here’s the story.
Hammond OKs red light camera ordinance
HAMMOND | Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. on Tuesday signed off on the controversial red light camera system, making the city the first community in the state to put the program on its books.
Neither McDermott nor Hammond police Lt. Pat Vicari could be reached Wednesday to learn how soon the city plans to implement the system, where cameras take digital photos of vehicles running red lights and their license plate numbers.
Tickets are issued through the mail by the private company operating the system after a review by police. By ordinance, fines of $100 will be assessed and initially treated like parking tickets unless contested, when they become moving violations.
The plan currently calls for the system to be installed at six city intersections, three located in the Hessville area.
Police Lt. Richard Hoyda said Wednesday the targeted intersections were selected through a state-run database available to police.
“The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute has encouraged police jurisdictions to send in crash data as soon as possible,” Hoyda said. “Up to 80 percent of (police departments) are reporting.”
Hoyda said Vicari searched for the intersections showing the highest number of accidents, which Hoyda said indicate the places at most risk for injury.
“Red light running” legislation has failed to become law in the state of Indiana despite numerous attempts by supporters, particularly in the state Senate.
Within the last 30 days, the city of Gary has requested state Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary, to ask the office of Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter for an opinion on the program’s legality before the city attempts to create a local ordinance as has Hammond.
On Wednesday, Councilman at large Robert Markovich said he will ask lawmakers representing Hammond to initiate a similar request.
“If we need something like that to make it legal, we need to get them moving,” said Markovich, who overall supports the measure though he voted against approving the ordinance.
Markovich’s objections to the ordinance had focused on the cost of running into legal hurdles.
Bad Day Van
This guy is having a bad day.
6 tickets in 24 hours. Ouch!
The driver could go into boot status based on a single day of tickets. CRAP!
The Parking Ticket Geek On The Radio
I, the esteemed Parking Ticket Geek, just finished a short interview with Andy & Mike for this week’s Outside The Loop Radio.
Seemingly, these two terribly nice gentlemen, have found my rantings and ravings about Chicago parking tickets somewhat quaint and have invited me back for another episode of Outside The Loop Radio which airs every Friday at 6 PM on WLUW 88.7 FM.
You can hear all my insipid blathering this coming Friday.
Avoiding Red Light Camera Tickets: A Weekly Series
With the explosion of red light cameras in Chicago proper and the surrounding suburbs, I find it necessary to inform readers of The Expired Meter of some of the tips and tricks being employed to defeat red light camera tickets.
Please note, The Expired Meter does not, and will never endorse the idea of intentionally running red lights. In fact we discourage it in the strongest terms.
However, we also understand that motorists sometimes make mistakes and inadvertently may go through a red light. In our opinion, raising revenue on the backs of these motorists is not right.
The Expired Meter does not dispute the positive safety effects of red light camera surveillance. For the time being, we will accept the data that claims red light cameras DO reduce accidents and do improve safety at intersections.
However, we believe at best, it’s disingenuous, if not outright hypocritical, for Chicago and other cities to claim that the red light cameras are there for only one reason, safety. If this were the case, and Chicago was truly interested in improving safety, it would take the $50 million dollars a year it rakes in from red light camera fines and re-invest them into improving the safety of our streets.
For example, giving intersections longer yellow light intervals, synchronizing intersections for smoother flow of traffic, adding a short all red interval (where all sides of the intersection see a red light for a second) and improving intersection design, just to name a few.
Coincidentally, these ideas that improve intersection safety, do not generate revenue. How odd?!?
Because, it’s not about safety, it’s about revenue.
For all these reasons and to attempt, in a very pathetic and impotent way, to provide information that may help motorists fight back against red light camera violations, The Expired Meter will provide tips and advice on thwarting red light cameras.
Finally, besides any advice on driving more intelligently and safely, The Expired Meter does not endorse or officially recommend any of these anti-red light camera methods–we are just reporting their existence.
So, over the next few weeks, we will explore several different methods and strategies in pursuit of defeating red light camera detection, and avoiding red light camera tickets.
Stay tuned.
Algonquin Delays Red Light Cameras
The Daily Herald is reporting that northwest suburban Algonquin’s three proposed red light cameras have been delayed due to bureaucratic snafus.
Boy, that’s really too bad.
Let’s hope bureaucracy continues to gum up the works for red light cameras in Algonquin.
Here’s the story.
Algonquin red light cameras delayed
If you’re a motorist driving through three of Algonquin’s busiest intersections, you’ve got a two-month reprieve before red-light cameras begin tracking your every move.
The cameras were scheduled to be installed this month, but bureaucratic delays pushed them back to an August debut, said Sgt. Wade Merritt, head of the police traffic patrol division.
“Red light cameras are running behind,” Merritt said.
A 30-day trial period will begin sometime in August, before $100 tickets will be given to drivers speeding through the three intersections.
The three intersections are Algonquin and Randall roads, where there will be two cameras, Randall Road and Bunker Hill Drive and routes 31 and 62, where there will be one camera.
Police said the three intersection record the most accidents in town.
In case you need proof that you ran a red light, ACS State and Local Solutions Inc., which owns the cameras, allows you to view your own footage on its Web site.
The camera service doesn’t come cheap.
Each camera costs $4,950 a month to rent — that’s a total of $19,800– or 198 tickets at $100 a pop — that the village will be shelling out monthly.
But officials said ticket revenue is expected to more than make up for the expense.
Moreover, tickets issued through the system don’t go on your driving record, police said.
24 Hour Parking Meters In Chicago?!?
I found this video by “MysteryMika,” that related some important parking meter info that even I wasn’t familiar with.
It’s shocking really.
The video shows that all the parking meters on Chicago’s downtown lakefront, near the Adler Planetarium and the Shedd Aquarium, must be fed 24 hours a day!!!
The parking meters are on E. Solidarity Drive, a short street that is in the midst of Chicago’s museum campus. It’s right between the Field Museum, the planetarium, aquarium and Soldier Field.
24 hours a day!!! Crap!
Ask The Parking Ticket Geek 6/13/08
Editors Note: This week’s episode of Ask The Parking Ticket Geek is a special 2-part question. Mr. Geek will answer the first part of the question this week, and the second part next week. Thank you for bearing with my obsession with clarity and minutae.
Deer Geek -
Yesterday, I received a parking ticket for*: “09-64-200(b) Outside Metered Space as designated by pavement markings”. I was in a parking spot on E. Superior that did not have a parking meter. You can see from the attached photograph that the car ahead of me has a meter. My spot (I’m the blue Honda) does not. I’m pretty sure I can contest this violation, since there are no “pavement markings”… right?
Interestingly, though, I got another ticket for the same violation SIX MINUTES LATER! What’s up with that? Is there a law about how often cops are allowed to ticket you for the same violation? It was a different officer for each violation..
Should I contest these separately, or together?
Thanks,
-Double-Bad
Dear Double-Bad-
Wow. This is an interesting one. I have never seen a ticket for this before.
Let’s start with the applicable law.
9-64-200 Parking meters – Installation and pavement markings.
(a) The commissioner of transportation shall cause parking meters to be installed in parking meter zones in such numbers, during such hours of operation, at such rates, and at such places as established by the city council and shall have markings painted or placed upon the pavement adjacent to each parking meter, where such markings are appropriate for the type of parking meter installed, for the purpose of designating the parking space for which the meter is to be used. The commissioner shall consult with the traffic compliance administrator in determining the number of meters necessary in any zone.
(b) It shall be unlawful to park any vehicle in any designated parking meter space except entirely within the area defined by the markings for that space.
From your photos, it doesn’t look like there are ANY pavement markings anywhere on the side of the street where you parked. The fact is, the city didn’t mark any of these spaces. I can’t recall where I have EVER seen a parking meter that also had street markings to designate exactly where to park.
So, my simple answer is to tell the hearing officer you were parked in a space that did not have a parking meter.
Make sure you show him or her photos of the street where you parked to explicitly demonstrate there are NO markings on the street, curb, etc.
Also take photos of the spot itself and the two surrounding spots that do have meters. I would also take photos from across the street that shows the three spots in question, the spot you were parked, and the spot in front and back that actually have meters.
Finally, see if you can take some photos to establish the address where you parked. The front of a building with an address number and/or a street sign or some sort of recognizable landmark.
Double-Bad, the photos you sent are just OK. They will probably do the job. But they are not slam dunk photos that clearly document the situation so even a lobotomized hearing officer can understand what’s going on.
And really, what’s going on is a cop or parking enforcement officer (meter maid) was low on quota and/or pissed that you found a spot that didn’t have a meter. Well, fuck them, let’s shove these tickets back down their throat.
So, in review here’s how you should layout your testimony and defense.
1-Tell the hearing officer you were parked at a legal spot.
2-Explain there was no meter in the spot you parked in and that it was in-between two meters. Show him or her the photos detailing the spot and establishing the address.
3-Read, actually read the full municipal code I cited above to the hearing officer.
4-Tell the hearing officer there are no pavement or street markings to designate the parameters of the metered spaces. Show him photos of the curb and street (for all three spots) to demonstrate there are no markings designating the metered spaces. Explain that, according to 9-64-200(a), the law you cited previously, the city has FAILED to follow the law and that you cannot be held accountable for these tickets because without street markings, how are you supposed to know where the metered spots begin or end?
If there was a meter posted there at one time, it does not exist at this time and as seen by the photos, cars were already parked behind the parking meters in front and in back of you. You parked at the non-metered spot between them.
As far as the two tickets being written for the same violation, we will address this part of the question next week.
Remember to tune in next week at this same Geek time and same Geek channel.
Very truly yours,
The Parking Ticket Geek
If you have a question for The Parking Ticket Geek, please e-mail the Geek at: askthegeek@theexpiredmeter.com
If we publish your question, you get an Expired Meter T-shirt–FREE!
