ALJDEC

00-11802-CPP · Department of Administration - Capitol Police Parking · 2001-02-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 31, 2001 APPEARANCES: Capitol Police Security Aide Isabelle Mendez and Appellant, Joe Marin. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Appellant, Joe Marin, has contested the issuance of Capitol Police Citation Number 11802. 2. On December 7, 2000, Capitol Police Security Aide Isabelle Mendez (Badge No. 867) personally observed Appellant’s vehicle parked in a restricted Rideshare reserved parking space in a State lot located at 205 South 17th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. The parking restriction was clearly marked so as to be visible to vehicle operators. Security Aide Mendez looked for but did not find any parking permit displayed anywhere on Appellant’s vehicle. 3. It was not disputed that Appellant was and is the lawful registered owner of the observed vehicle. 4. Security Aide Mendez issued Citation Number 11802 imposing a fine in the amount of $16.00 for unauthorized parking in a space reserved for Rideshare participants and their vehicles in violation of the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-796. 5. On or about September 29, 2000, Capitol Police issued a written warning to Appellant concerning his vehicle being parked in a reserved Rideshare parking space without a properly displayed permit at the same above- described State lot. 6. The testimony and evidence presented by Appellant revealed that he is a member of the Rideshare program who possesses Rideshare parking permit number 3183. On the date that Citation Number 11802 was issued, Appellant did not change his Rideshare parking permit with his wife’s Revlon employee parking permit hanging on his vehicle’s rear view mirror.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. A.R.S. § 41-796 grants the Arizona Department of Administration authority to “adopt and administratively enforce the rules for the control of vehicles on state property”, including but not limited to the “(p)lace, method and time of parking”, as well as the “(d)esignation 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 special class, such as physically disabled persons, travel reduction program participants, or visitors.” 3. A.A.C. R2-6-203(A)(5) provides, in pertinent part, that “a person shall not park a vehicle in a reserved parking space without authorization…” 4. The spirit and intent of the law with respect to allowing persons who participate in travel reduction programs, primarily known as “Rideshare” programs, is to recognize the ecological and environmental benefits achieved through the efforts of such individuals by according them some measure of preference in return for such efforts, assuring that the driver for that particular day will be able to park in one of a group of reserved spaces, convenient to the building entrance. 5. A.A.C. R 2-6-204(A) requires that a person shall properly display a reserved parking space decal in a prescribed manner to enable parking in a reserved parking space. 6. A.A.C. R2-6-206(B)(6) provides for the imposition of a fine in the amount of $16.00 for unauthorized parking in reserved parking spaces, other than spaces for the physically disabled. This subsection would encompass spaces reserved for Rideshare participants. 7. Although the Appellant is authorized to park in a Rideshare reserved parking space and holds or shares a Rideshare permit, that authorization requires him to properly display the permit in order to park in the reserved parking space. 8. The Department of Administration, through the Capitol Police, has sufficiently met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-796 and A.A.C. R2-6-206(B)(6). 9. There is insufficient evidence to support the mitigation of the fine for Appellant’s offense in this matter. On the contrary, the fact that Appellant had been given a written warning by the Capitol Police approximately two months prior to the incident in this matter supports the imposition of a $16.00 fine.

ORDER

In view of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Citation Number 11802 be upheld, and that Appellant shall pay a fine in the amount of $16.00 in accordance with the payment instructions set forth at the bottom of the citation.

This Decision and Order of Administrative Law Judge is a final administrative decision, notwithstanding the provisions of A.R.S. § 41- 1092.08, in accordance with the standing motion of J. Elliott Hibbs, Director of the Arizona Department of Administration. Appellant has the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Administration pursuant to A.A.C. R2-6-208 and A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A). In addition, Appellant has the right to appeal the decision in this matter directly to the Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H). Done this day, February 1, 2001.

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

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

Department of Administration-Capitol Police Parking J. Elliott Hibbs, Director 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