I accidentally pulled in to a handicap parking spot *UPDATED Feb 1*

[JEDIYoda]

It's a government regulation--or at least a state regulation, but probably on a Federal level as well.

For every X amount of parking for normal people, a ratio of X amounts of disabled people need to have disabled parking spots.

Some states are more extreme than others.

Anyway OP, I would definitely take it to court. Get a good lawyer, don't WHINE or EVEN MENTION tinted windows, say you pulled in, car was still running, you backed out, but was blocked by the cop.

The cop probably won't even show up. Just dress nicely, ( and by all means do not say screw handicapped people)be polite, don't say anything stupid and incriminating, and the judge will probably drop the whole thing.

 

[alkemyst]

If you tried to explain you couldnt see out your tinted windows, you're lucky the cop didn't impound the vehicle for being undrivable.

dude you hate life too much to even read what someone has posted.

take some time off and recollect y0self.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't find that strange. I assume there are quotas to satify the public or the bosses/politicians, etc, but why not monetary quotas?

good ol' cops saying there is no quota.

Meanwhile all they do is tickets...get robbed or something and ask them to spend more time on your case and they will flat out tell you it's not an income steam basically.

 

[boomhower]

I wouldn't have wrote it. Heck I have never wrote an actual handicapp citation, just the $10 city tickets.

 

[masterxfob]

i'd definitely contest the ticket. that said, this thread reminded me of this song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4&feature=player_embedded#

 

[alkemyst]

should have beat the cop with your cane old man.

 

[RgrPark]

how about resizing the pictures?

 

[NetGuySC]

I would ask for a jury trial

 

[jlee]

Of course it would. I'm not a judge, but I think I've adequately demonstrated that a person could not reasonably believe that the OP broke any law with the information available.

Reasonable suspicion is needed for a detention. Probable cause is needed for an arrest/summons.

If I see someone with a beer and that person appears to be under the age of 21, I can check ID. That's a detention based on reasonable suspicion. If I determine that they are underage, they're cited for it - that's based on probable cause. Reasonable suspicion provides the opportunity to investigate further. As I said, if the OP had a handicap placard, I highly doubt the officer would have written the ticket.

 

[7window]

This is just plain dumb and it doesn't make sense. Someone making a 3 point turn in a handicap stall should not be ticketed. I would fight it in court. If it was illegal to do a three point turn in a handicap parking it should have a warning.

How about this scenario that I experienced last night? I was parked in a non handicap stall next to a handicap parking. I was happy about it because the space next to me is the The loading and unloading area of the pavement adjacent to a parking stall or space designated for disabled persons or disabled . I was excited about it because that would ensure that my car wont hit by another car opening their door. When I came out of the theater a car who does not have a handicap sticker parked on that space (loading , unloading space). What would you guys do? The mall was busy last night.

 

[bob4432]

I would ask for a jury trial

here is the fucked up part - at least in the city in which my wife got her ticket - fighting the ticket cost just a bit more than the judge ordered her to pay and then you have to take in to acct all the time necessary and when you work for yourself time = $$$, so op, be prepared for that fuabar situation too

 

[MotionMan]

i would fight it but be warned you may not win anything - i am disabled, have the long term placard and about 4mos after i had spinal surgery the wife and i went out to a store - finally ok'd by the neurosurgeon to do what i wanted to. we pulled into a store that had probably 10+ disabled spots open and we pulled into one. put up the placard and pulled the sun shade and went into the store. i guess when we pulled the sunshade it knocked of the placard (as the officer went to court and said he couldn't see it) so when we get back to the vehicle, a ticket is on it for parking in a disabled spot.

figure no biggie - we will just fight it - take a copy of the placard, misc docs about my ailments but still lost - for some reason the vehicle is in both my and my wife's name but hers is on top and that is the name the judge looked at and since she isn't disabled he said he would not throw it out and would not let me talk at all. he did reduce the ticket amount by ~70% though, but the ticket was still issued and not taken back even though i was in the vehicle. so good luck to you. also, this was in early 07 - before all the budget issues so bring some lube just in case.

I think you must have misunderstood something. The hang tags are transferable with the handicapped person. For example, I can hang one in my car when I am transporting my mother.

I think the judge probably changed the charge from something like improperly parking in a handicapped spot (i.e. no disability) to failure to display parking placard. there is probably a big difference in the fines for those.

MotionMan

 

[jlee]

This is just plain dumb and it doesn't make sense. Someone making a 3 point turn in a handicap stall should not be ticketed. I would fight it in court. If it was illegal to do a three point turn in a handicap parking it should have a warning.

How about this scenario that I experienced last night? I was parked in a non handicap stall next to a handicap parking. I was happy about it because the space next to me is the The loading and unloading area of the pavement adjacent to a parking stall or space designated for disabled persons or disabled . I was excited about it because that would ensure that my car wont hit by another car opening their door. When I came out of the theater a car who does not have a handicap sticker parked on that space (loading , unloading space). What would you guys do? The mall was busy last night.

I would ticket it.

 

[waggy]

I think you must have misunderstood something. The hang tags are transferable with the handicapped person. For example, I can hang one in my car when I am transporting my mother.

I think the judge probably changed the charge from something like improperly parking in a handicapped spot (i.e. no disability) to failure to display parking placard. there is probably a big difference in the fines for those.

MotionMan

that's what im thinking i don't think a judge would be that idiotic. odds are he changed it to something else and was not clear to you.

the tag you hang up is so you can transfer between cars. I have both a tag and plate. i got the tag so if i am with someone else i can get the parking spots (if i need it).

 

[MotionMan]

that is what my family doc, neurologist and neurosurgeon all said...of course along w/ everybody else i have told.

that is my life - here is another one to give you a good laugh - a month before this i was called for jury duty - i had my family doc and neurosurgeon write a letter to the court on my behalf because i can't sit/stand really do anything for long periods of time due to not only the spinal cord surgery but other neurological issues and was denied a waiver or whatever one calls it. i had to sit in court for 6hrs or so on the hard wood before we got a break for lunch, at which time talked to the bailiff and gave her the notes from my docs - at that time the judge signed me out but by then i couldn't feel my legs, my feet felt like there were on fire due to nerve damage from the surgery and my upper back was spasming like crazy because i couldn't get up and move around. oh the joys of my civil duties and to think i opted not to get "paid" for my time that day, oh, i am the idiot i guess....fun times, fun times

Let this be a lesson to all of you.

I am not sure why you did not speak to the bailiff before court started (at 6 a.m.?), or refused to sit down and explained why at that point.

Sheeple are funny.

MotionMan

 

[bob4432]

I think you must have misunderstood something. The hang tags are transferable with the handicapped person. For example, I can hang one in my car when I am transporting my mother.

I think the judge probably changed the charge from something like improperly parking in a handicapped spot (i.e. no disability) to failure to display parking placard. there is probably a big difference in the fines for those.

MotionMan

to be honest, i really don't know and i just shredded the paperwork about a week ago - figured i wouldn't need it anymore. even so, imho the judge was a dick because i am disabled per at least 5docs, owcp, dol, ssd, industrial docs, etc and i was in the car. he would not let me talk or show him the documentation at all, i honestly didn't even need to go since nothing i was not allowed to speak. the placard was in the car, we think it just fell off the rearview mirror when we pulled the sun shade across. we opted not to get the disabled plates as to not make ourselves a target.

 

[bob4432]

Let this be a lesson to all of you.

I am not sure why you did not speak to the bailiff before court started (at 6 a.m.?), or refused to sit down and explained why at that point.

Sheeple are funny.

MotionMan

if you really must know, the reason was i have been called to jury duty before and the judge has always asked in the beginning if anybody had any issues, my wife has gone to jury duty and the same questions were asked at the very beginning. this judge did it an entirely different way - obviously to my detriment. had i known the method being used was not what neither i or my wife had experienced in the past i would have talked to the girl downstairs in the reception area, but figured no biggie, this will take 15min and i will be out. not the case.

 

[mugs]

Reasonable suspicion is needed for a detention. Probable cause is needed for an arrest/summons.

If I see someone with a beer and that person appears to be under the age of 21, I can check ID. That's a detention based on reasonable suspicion. If I determine that they are underage, they're cited for it - that's based on probable cause. Reasonable suspicion provides the opportunity to investigate further. As I said, if the OP had a handicap placard, I highly doubt the officer would have written the ticket.

I understand the difference.

If you see someone with a beer who does NOT appear to be under 21, can you force them to prove they're 21? That's more analogous to this situation. The OP didn't have any information that would lead him to believe the OP wasn't handicapped. He was detained because he was pulling out of a handicapped spot, not because he was pulling out of a handicapped spot and the officer reasonably believed that he was not handicapped.

Edit: Trying to articulate this a different way... reasonable suspicion means that a person could reasonably believe that a crime has occurred given the known facts, right? And in order to believe a crime has occurred, they'd have to believe all elements of the crime are present, right? It's illegal for someone who is under 21 to drink alcohol, so if you see someone who is drinking alcohol and appears to be under 21 then you could reasonably believe they're breaking the law. You have reasonable suspicion to investigate further.

It's also illegal to park in a handicapped spot unless a handicapped person was in the vehicle and a handicapped placard was displayed while the car was parked. A person could reasonably conclude that the OP parked in a handicapped spot. A person could not reasonably conclude that the OP had parked without a handicapped person in the car or without displaying the placard, because at the time the OP was seen the placard would not be displayed (it would block his vision while the car was in motion) and there is no way to tell by looking at his car that the OP is not handicapped. Therefore how could a person reasonably believe that a crime had occurred? They couldn't.

An example of a similar situation where I believe there would be reasonable suspicion - cop sees car parked in handicapped spot with placard, but cop sees a guy who had clearly just finished playing tackle football get into the car and drive away alone. A person could reasonably believe that guy was not actually handicapped.

Now if you're telling me that reasonable suspicion need not be based on a belief that all requirements of the crime have been met, then I think that's unfortunate. I hope the constitution protects us against that.

 

[alkemyst]

to be honest, i really don't know and i just shredded the paperwork about a week ago - figured i wouldn't need it anymore. even so, imho the judge was a dick because i am disabled per at least 5docs, owcp, dol, ssd, industrial docs, etc and i was in the car. he would not let me talk or show him the documentation at all, i honestly didn't even need to go since nothing i was not allowed to speak. the placard was in the car, we think it just fell off the rearview mirror when we pulled the sun shade across. we opted not to get the disabled plates as to not make ourselves a target.

so you had a hearing and you were representing yourself and the judge said you couldn't speak?

Seriously?

 

[MotionMan]

if you really must know, the reason was i have been called to jury duty before and the judge has always asked in the beginning if anybody had any issues, my wife has gone to jury duty and the same questions were asked at the very beginning. this judge did it an entirely different way - obviously to my detriment. had i known the method being used was not what neither i or my wife had experienced in the past i would have talked to the girl downstairs in the reception area, but figured no biggie, this will take 15min and i will be out. not the case.

As a lesson to everyone, if this happens to you, after 15 minutes, raise your hand. the judge will call on you and, if you can get your issue out in the first 10 words or less, you should be golden.

(Also, SIX hours in the courtroom with no breaks? Sorry, but I gotta call shens. If true, what the hell state are you in?)

MotionMan

 

[JEDIYoda]

if you really must know, the reason was i have been called to jury duty before and the judge has always asked in the beginning if anybody had any issues, my wife has gone to jury duty and the same questions were asked at the very beginning. this judge did it an entirely different way - obviously to my detriment. had i known the method being used was not what neither i or my wife had experienced in the past i would have talked to the girl downstairs in the reception area, but figured no biggie, this will take 15min and i will be out. not the case.

so this thread is total pownage of the Op by the OP!!!!

 

[bob4432]

As a lesson to everyone, if this happens to you, after 15 minutes, raise your hand. the judge will call on you and, if you can get your issue out in the first 10 words or less, you should be golden.

(Also, SIX hours in the courtroom with no breaks? Sorry, but I gotta call shens. If true, what the hell state are you in?)

MotionMan

maybe it was 4.5-5hrs, i was on a ton of pain meds at the time (it was a long, sorry if i can't give you the exact amount of time), but i went in somehwere around 8:00 or so and it wasn't till after 1:00pm i got out. i am AZ, it was the main court in downtown PHX

 

[bob4432]

so you had a hearing and you were representing yourself and the judge said you couldn't speak?

Seriously?

the ticket was in my wife's name and the judge wouldn't let her show him my info or let me talk/explain/show my docs because he said it was her issue, not mine. again, the vehicle is in both our names but her name is on top - don't know why that either but that is the way it is - never really thought it would matter but i guess it does.

 

[jlee]

I understand the difference.

If you see someone with a beer who does NOT appear to be under 21, can you force them to prove they're 21? That's more analogous to this situation. The OP didn't have any information that would lead him to believe the OP wasn't handicapped. He was detained because he was pulling out of a handicapped spot, not because he was pulling out of a handicapped spot and the officer reasonably believed that he was not handicapped.

Edit: Trying to articulate this a different way... reasonable suspicion means that a person could reasonably believe that a crime has occurred given the known facts, right? And in order to believe a crime has occurred, they'd have to believe all elements of the crime are present, right? It's illegal for someone who is under 21 to drink alcohol, so if you see someone who is drinking alcohol and appears to be under 21 then you could reasonably believe they're breaking the law. You have reasonable suspicion to investigate further.

It's also illegal to park in a handicapped spot unless a handicapped person was in the vehicle and a handicapped placard was displayed while the car was parked. A person could reasonably conclude that the OP parked in a handicapped spot. A person could not reasonably conclude that the OP had parked without a handicapped person in the car or without displaying the placard, because at the time the OP was seen the placard would not be displayed (it would block his vision while the car was in motion) and there is no way to tell by looking at his car that the OP is not handicapped. Therefore how could a person reasonably believe that a crime had occurred? They couldn't.

An example of a similar situation where I believe there would be reasonable suspicion - cop sees car parked in handicapped spot with placard, but cop sees a guy who had clearly just finished playing tackle football get into the car and drive away alone. A person could reasonably believe that guy was not actually handicapped.

Now if you're telling me that reasonable suspicion need not be based on a belief that all requirements of the crime have been met, then I think that's unfortunate. I hope the constitution protects us against that.

You are confusing probable cause with reasonable suspicion.

Let's say we get a call that an armed robbery just happened and the suspect vehicle was a white four door Corolla. I see a vehicle matching the description in the general area. I don't know that it's the same one, nor do I know if the robbery suspect is inside - but I have every right to stop the vehicle and investigate it.

Believe that all requirements of the crime have been met is probable cause. Belief that a crime may have occurred is reasonable suspicion. You cannot make an arrest based on reasonable suspicion, but it can warrant further investigation.

 

[SunSamurai]

jLee, you're resorting to comparing this to a armed robbery. Come on.This guy didnt commit any crimes except that of an honest HARMLESS mistake.

Cop was a douche end of story.