ALJDEC

01-10251-CPP · Department of Administration - Capitol Police Parking · 2001-02-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 8, 2001. APPEARANCES: APPELLANT: Norm Metcalf, on his own behalf. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, CAPITOL POLICE: by Eddie McBride, Police Assistant.

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. In testimony at hearing, Capital Police Assistant Eddie McBride (McBride) stated that on November 22, 2000, at 3:23 p.m., he issued Citation No. 10251 to a vehicle (later determined to be registered to Norm Metcalf) for unauthorized parking in a reserved space on state government property because the vehicle was parked at 1801 West Jefferson (Motor Vehicles Division, Phoenix) in a Rideshare space without a visible Rideshare tag or sticker. 2. In further testimony, McBride opined that the posted signage present in the immediate area of the Rideshare parking spaces in that parking lot was sufficiently visible to indicate the spaces were reserved for authorized Rideshare participants. He did not think the signage was particularly obscured by bushes or other landscaping also present in the immediate area, or by other vehicles occupying certain of the parking spaces nearby. 3. Appellant Norm Metcalf (Metcalf) timely appealed the Citation, including with his appeal a statement and hand-drawn representation of the Rideshare parking area where the Citation had been issued. Administrative notice is taken of the statement and drawing. 4. In the statement and drawing, consistent with his testimony at hearing, Metcalf contended that the particular “Rideshare only” signage nearest the space he parked in (and in his direction of travel) was essentially obscured by bushes and landscaping, and by a sedan and large van which generally occupied the spaces nearest the closest sign. 5. Metcalf confirmed that he was employed by MVD, and was not a participant in the Rideshare program, and generally did not park in the area, or the space where his vehicle had been cited, but had been advised by his supervisors to park in that area (although not specifically in Rideshare spaces) if he were arriving in the afternoon and anticipated working late. In this instance, he stated he had arrived in the hour before the Citation was issued at 3:23 p.m., and parked in the space in question without realizing it was reserved for Rideshare, since he had not seen any sign as he drove in.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Arizona Revised Statutes at A.R.S. §41-796 grant the Arizona Department of Administration 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. The Arizona Administrative Code at 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. The Arizona Administrative Code prohibits parking in a reserved parking space without authorization or park in a space reserved for the physically disabled without displaying the proper placard or plates. A.A.C. R2-6-203(A)(5) and 204(B). Persons parking a vehicle on state property must obey posted parking signs. A.A.C. R2-6-205(B). 4. Failure to follow the above rules results in monetary penalties being assessed the registered owner of the vehicle. A.A.C. R2-6-206(A). Unauthorized parking in a reserved space carried a fine of $16.00. A.A.C. R2-6-206(B)(6). 5. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-6-207, persons served with a Citation for violating the above rules may appeal and have a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge who may impose a monetary penalty. In order to give meaningful effect to this rule, the Administrative Law Judge must not only have the authority to affirm or dismiss a citation but also to modify the penalty in consideration of the gravity of the offense and other mitigating factors. 6. The spirit and intent of the rules allowing persons with Rideshare permits to park in special parking spaces is to reward them for carpooling, thus helping to reduce traffic and pollution in the metropolitan area. It is necessary to require the participants of the program to display the appropriate permit in order to allow the Capital Police to enforce the rules reserving these spaces to participants of the Rideshare program. 7. In this case, Mr. Metcalf was not participating in the Rideshare program and thus was not one of the people authorized to benefit from the spaces, nor does he contend any such authorization. Rather, his defense is premised on his perception that there is insufficient notice, i.e., obscured signage, relative to the restricted spaces along the route leading to the particular space he parked in. 8. On this record, it is uncontroverted that the Department of Administration has sustained its burden of demonstrating that Citation No. 10251 was properly issued: when cited on November 20, 2000, Metcalf was not authorized to park in a space reserved for Rideshare participants. 9. However, while each individual is deemed credible, the testimony of McBride and Metcalf is in conflict as to the reasonable visibility of the signage barring Metcalf from parking where he did without authorization. 10. Such conflict is deemed appropriate for consideration in mitigation of the penalty assessed, and it is therefore concluded by the undersigned that while the violation occurred as cited, the penalty should be reduced to $8.00.

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before ten (10) days from the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, Appellant shall pay a fine of $8.00 to the Department of Administration, Capitol Police. On standing motion by J. Elliott Hibbs, the Director of the Department of Administration, this decision is the final administrative decision. The Appellant has the right to request a rehearing from the Department of Administration pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.09(A). In addition, the Appellant has the right to appeal this decision to the Superior Court, pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.08(H). Done this day, February 14, 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