Philadelphia appears to be defying a court order to require the most minimal due process protection for drivers in parking violation cases. Common Pleas Judge Leon Tucker issued an order weeks ago that drivers were entitled to some basic protections in ticking such as the right to know where the violation allegedly occurred and to have the right to question the ticket givers. City officials however have declared the protections to be simply not “practical” and appear to be ignoring it according to a columnist. The decision is an important victory for citizens who are often clipped by cities as a source of additional revenue through parking tickets.
Tucker ruled that ticket writers had to sign the tickets and state the exact location where the law was violated. The court also said that drivers should be able to cross examine the ticket givers and have a written ruling in contested cases.
Cities often impose a system that violated core guarantees of due process. I once challenged a ticket in New Orleans where I was ticketed for blocking my own driveway. When I tried to explain to the court that that was not possible under the city law (since I was the protected class), I was cut off and said that it was a “strict liability offense.” When I tried to explain that that made no sense and that the law clearly prohibits others from blocking my driveway, I was told that I could appeal the ruling in the same court room — in front of the same judge.
City Solicitor Shelley Smith appears to simply have ignored the order after failing in a motion for reconsideration. No appeal was taken but the city is still not complying according to the column below.
Smith’s view of the impracticality of giving basic rights to drivers is a rather curious position to take in the face of an unappealed order. You are not required to follow only “practical” orders in our system of law. Cities have created systems that offer little protection or due process for drivers. That lack of rights certainly moves things along and generates considerable money for the city. However, it appears that one judge would like to see a modicum of due process in a court system even if it is only traffic court.
It will be interesting to watch to the response of the court to the inaction of the city. The most obvious response (if a daily running fine is not used) would be to negate tickets based on the failure to guarantee these elements.
What do you think?
26 thoughts on “Philadelphia Defies Court Order To Ensure Minimum of Due Process In Parking Citations”
735388 451201hey was just seeing in case you minded a comment. i like your internet site and the theme you picked is super. I is going to be back. 724517
I lost my employment appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filed a petition for rehearing. Lost again. Submitted to the same three judge panel. All three judges female. The three quasi-judicial judges on the MSPB panel? All female.
Factor that. Do you want to go to Russia?
“Common Pleas Judge Leon Tucker issued an order weeks ago that drivers were entitled to some basic protections …”
If I were that judge I’d be very, very unhappy with the city. Does he retain jurisdiction or have recourse?
Northie, It’s a problem with bureaucracies, not a President. But if you want to blame a President, don’t exclude any of them.
They are just following Obuma……don’t like a rule , just ignore it….it,s written in the democratic rule book.
Jude, the law office folks may even have some boilerplate Affidavit forms in their word processor programs. Good luck.
I once did that to the accounts receivable department of a major hospital over my daughter’s hospital bill that ran in the high six figures. I could not get the rank and file collection workers to understand she was on Medicaid. She had been a ward of the state when we adopted her, and qualified for Medicaid due to her cancer. They were trying to bill me for the amount Medicaid disallowed. After the CFO of the hospital got my Certified Letter–which I had cc to the Medicare/Medicaid Commission, I got a written apology from the supervisor over the collection department.
Comments are closed.