ALJDEC

00-10721-CPP · Department of Administration - Capitol Police Parking · 2000-08-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

On August 2, 2000, a hearing was held regarding a parking citation issued to Karol Hollenbeck (the “Appellant”). The Appellant appeared and represented herself. Capitol Police Aide William Harper (“Harper”) represented the Department of Administration, Capitol Police (the “Department”). Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Harper testified that Police Aide Caovette observed the Appellant’s motor vehicle parked at 1600 West Monroe, Phoenix, Arizona on Friday, June 2, 2000, at 11:12 a.m. Mr. Harper testified that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a parking space specifically posted as reserved for only Rideshare Program (“Rideshare”) participants. Mr. Harper testified that Police Aide Caovette inspected the vehicle for a Rideshare parking permit. Mr. Harper testified that Police Aide Caovette did not observe such a permit anywhere within the vehicle. Accordingly, Mr. Harper testified that Police Aide Coavette issued Citation No. 10721 to the Appellant for unauthorized parking in a reserved parking space. This Citation included a $16.00 penalty.

2. The Appellant testified that she does not hold a Rideshare parking permit. The Appellant testified that she is an employee at the Arizona Department of Revenue (the “DOR”). The Appellant testified that she has received two e-mails (dated March 11, 1998 and June 23, 2000) from the DOR Administration stating that non-Rideshare DOR employees are allowed to park in Rideshare parking spaces after 8:30 a.m. on Fridays. The Appellant provided copies of the two e-mails. See Appellant’s Exhibit 1. The Appellant testified that she never would have parked in a Rideshare parking space absent the permission set forth in the two e-mails.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Arizona Department of Administration has the authority to “adopt and administratively enforce rules for the control of vehicles on state property”, including, but not limited to, the “place, method, and time of parking” and the “designation of special parking areas for state employees and the general public.” A.R.S. § 41-796(A).

2. A “person shall not park a vehicle in a reserved parking space without authorization…” A.A.C. R2-6-203(A)(5). The term “reserved parking space” means “any parking space designated for a special purpose or a special class, such as physically disabled persons, travel reduction program participants, or visitors.” A.A.C. R2-6-201(9).

3. A “person . . . parking a vehicle on state property shall obey posted . . . parking signs.” A.A.C. R2-6-205(B). Unless “a person is a visitor using parking reserved for visitors, the person shall properly display a reserved parking space decal” when parked in a reserved parking space. A.A.C. R2-6-204(A)(emphasis added).

4. The “registered owner of a vehicle involved in a violation of R2-6-203, R2-6-204, or R2-6-205 shall pay the monetary penalties prescribed in [R2-6- 206(B)].” A.A.C. R2-6-206(A). There is a $16.00 penalty for unauthorized parking in any reserved parking space, other than those reserved for the physically disabled. A.A.C. R2-6-206(B)(6).

5. The Department bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Appellant has violated traffic and parking rules. A.R.S. § 41-796(E); Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 437, 930 P.2d 508, 514 (App. 1996). The Department has met its burden. The Appellant does not hold a Rideshare parking permit but she parked in a parking spot reserved for Rideshare parking. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Appellant has violated R2-6-203(A)(5), R2-6-204(A) and R2-6-205(B).

6. The DOR Administration does not have the authority to allow non- Rideshare participants to use Rideshare parking spaces. Only the Arizona Department of Administration has such authority. However, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge cannot ignore the fact that the Appellant received authorization from a superior stating that she was allowed to park in the Rideshare parking spaces after 8:30 a.m. on Fridays. Normally, an employee would not question the authority of a superior who has allowed the employee to park in a Rideshare parking space. Accordingly, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that under the unique circumstances of this case, the Citation should be quashed. However, nothing in this decision is intended to condone the Appellant’s failure to abide by the above referenced rules. In fact, this case should properly constitute a one time exception and any future charged and proven violations of a similar nature should warrant imposition of the monetary penalty set forth in the citation. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Citation No. 10721 shall be quashed and that the Appellant shall not have to pay the $16.00 penalty as prescribed in A.A.C. R2-6-206(B). However, the Appellant is formally admonished that she must exercise greater care in the future when parking in a parking space reserved for the Rideshare program. This decision is the final administrative decision, notwithstanding A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, on standing motion of J. Elliott Hibbs, Director of the Arizona Department of Administration.

Done this day, August 7, 2000.

______________________________________ Casey J. Newcomb Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of August, 2000, to:

J. Elliott Hibbs Department of Administration-Capitol Police Parking Attn.: Wendy Hammon 1700 W. Washington, Room B-15 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826