ALJDEC

00-11727-CPP · Department of Administration - Capitol Police Parking · 2001-01-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 5, 2001. APPEARANCES: APPELLANT: David Mattingly, on his own behalf. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, CAPITAL POLICE: by Adam Fuentes, police aide.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Anthony Halas _____________________________________________________________________ Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Evidence of record and the testimony of Arizona Capitol Police Aide Adam Fuentes established that on November 14, 2000, at 11:52 a.m., Police Aide Arnson issued Citation 11727 to Appellant David Mattingly as the registered owner of a motor vehicle parked in a visitor’s parking lot at the location of the state capitol complex at 1700 West Washington, in Phoenix, Arizona. The citation provided that for “[p]arking in a location not designated as a parking space” a penalty of $20.00 was assessed; and for “[d]riving or parking on a pedestrian path or sidewalk” a penalty of $25.00 was assessed, for a total of $45.00 in penalties. Appellant Mattingly timely appealed.

2. Mr. Fuentes testified in this instance based on his experience as a Capitol Police Aide, with knowledge of the practices and procedures regarding enforcement of the parking regulations contained in the Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-796. He conceded that he had no first-hand knowledge of the events and circumstances leading to the issuance of Citation 11727 by Arnson to Appellant. 3. Appellant Mattingly, who is not a state employee, credibly testified that on the day in question, he and his wife had been invited to attend an event hosted in the state capitol by the governor to honor several hundred members of families of organ donors, but that when he arrived all visitor parking lots he could find were full (including those spaces reserved for the handicapped, in which he was authorized to park). 4. In his testimony, Appellant stated that after spending time driving around searching in vain for a space in which to park, he had finally parked in an area not designated as a parking area, as he noted other vehicles had been parked. He believed he had not blocked parking lot traffic to any degree. 5. Appellant then further testified to deny that he had driven or parked on any pedestrian path or sidewalk, although he recognized that the sidewalk was near where he had eventually parked his vehicle.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A.R.S. § 41-796 grants the Arizona Department of Administration with 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 “designation of special parking areas for state employees and the general public.” 2. A.A.C. R2-6-201.9 defines “reserved parking space” as “any parking space designated for a special purpose or a special class, such as physically disabled persons, travel reduction program participants, or visitors.” 3. A.A.C. R2-6-203.A.3 provides that “a person shall not park a vehicle in a location that is not designated as a parking space.” For such violation, R2-6-206.B3 assesses a penalty of $20.00. 4. In addition, A.A.C. R2-6-203.C.1 provides that “a person shall not drive or park a vehicle on a pedestrian path or sidewalk.” For such violation, R2-6-206.B9 assesses a penalty of $25.00. 5. A.A.C. R2-6-207 provides for the hearing process available to those choosing to contest the issuance of a parking citation. Nothing in the applicable statutes or rules would appear to prevent the presiding Administrative Law Judge from exercising a measure of discretion in these matters. In fact, A.A.C. R2-6-207.C provides, in pertinent part, that “…if…the administrative law judge determines that a violation has occurred and imposes a monetary penalty…a bill…shall be served with the decision.” Therefore, this section places the imposition of a monetary penalty within the discretion of the administrative law judge upon a hearing at the request of an individual contesting a parking citation. 6. In addition, and in order to provide a meaningful effect to such hearings, the Administrative Law Judge has inherent authority to not only affirm or dismiss a citation but also, upon evaluation of the gravity of the offense or other mitigating factors, the judge may modify the monetary penalty in order to more fairly measure the nature of the offense committed. Additionally, under appropriate circumstances, the judge has the power to merely issue an admonishment. 7. The citation issued in this matter states that Appellant’s vehicle was in violation of the applicable regulations for “parking in a location not designated as a parking space”, which he admits doing, for lack of available visitor parking. Therefore, a violation of A.A.C. R2-6- 203.A.3 has been demonstrated. 8. However, the undersigned concludes that in light of the totality of the circumstances, Appellant has provided good cause for the exercise of discretion by the undersigned in determining that although the violation has been proven as cited, the accompanying penalty assessed pursuant to A.A.C. R2-6-206.B.3 should be waived. 9. The citation also states that Appellant’s vehicle was in violation of the applicable regulations for “driving or parking on a pedestrian path or sidewalk.” However, Appellant Mattingly credibly denies that this was so, and there is no probative testimony or evidence in contravention of that testimony. Therefore, no violation of A.A.C. R2-6-203.C.1 has been proven, and the penalty assessed pursuant to A.A.C. R2-6-206.B.9 should be withdrawn. 10. The undersigned determines and concludes that this case should properly constitute a one-time exception and any future charged and proven violation by Appellant of a similar nature should warrant imposition of the monetary penalty set forth in the citation.

ORDER In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Citation No. 11727 be affirmed for violation of A.A.C. R2-6-203.A.3, but that the monetary penalty assessed pursuant to A.A.C. R2-6-206.B.3 be waived. Done this day, January 8, 2001.

______________________________________ Anthony Halas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2001, to:

Department of Administration-Capitol Police Parking J. Elliott Hibbs 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