ALJDEC

01-12379-CPP · Department of Administration - Capitol Police Parking · 2001-04-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 2, 2001. APPEARANCES: Appellant Thomas R. Cisco appeared, representing himself. Capitol Police Aide Shelley Hebets appeared, representing the Arizona Department of Administration-Capitol Police. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Thomas R. Cisco contested the issuance of Capitol Police Parking Citation No. 12379 (Citation). This Citation was issued alleging “parking in a location not designated as a parking space”, and indicates a fine of $20.00. 2. Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued by the Arizona Department of Administration-Capitol Police, this matter came on for regularly scheduled hearing on Monday, April 2, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. 3. On February 5, 2001, Capitol Security Aide Shelley Hebets issued Citation No. 12379, which indicated that the vehicle with License KRZ 489 had parked in a location not designated as a parking space. 4. Aide Hebets appeared at the administrative hearing for testimony regarding the issuance of the ticket. Aide Hebets testified that she had found this vehicle parked outside the stall lines in surface K Lot at 1700 W. Washington, and had issued the Citation. Aide Hebets testified that people should be parking inside the white stall lines, but have been parking outside the white stall lines, which blocks the lot’s drive areas. 5. The ticket indicates that it was given at 1700 W. Washington, at 2:13 p.m. 6. Appellant Cisco testified that he is a state employee, but does not (normally) work at the Capitol building. Appellant Cisco testified that he had been called upon by the Governor’s office to work on the new alternative fuel office from his normal duties at the Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Appellant Cisco testified that he, therefore, had short term experience with parking at the Capitol because he had only worked at the Capitol for about one month at the time of the Citation. 7. Appellant Cisco testified that, on that day, he had been called back to ADEQ and when he returned to the Capitol there had not been any parking spaces in K Lot and he had driven around for several minutes to try to find a space. Appellant Cisco testified that others were parked, and routinely continue to park, outside the lines in the same areas. Appellant Cisco argued that there are no signs posted in the lot which say that you must park between the lines. Appellant Cisco argued that he has on three other occasions seen cars parked in these areas and he has not seen citations on those cars. 8. Appellant Cisco argued that the Capitol Police are selective in enforcement of this parking violation, although he did indicate that he did not feel they had specifically selected him for this violation. Appellant Cisco posited that, if there is a statute which says people cannot park in undesignated areas, then that law should be applied equitably everyday and not only when the Capitol Police feel as though they should fulfill their duties. Appellant Cisco argued that the Citation was unwarranted, and should be excused. 9. Sergeant Brian Neus testified on behalf of the Department-Capitol Police. Sergeant Neus testified that the Capitol Officers and Aides go out and write citations as often as can when not attending to other priority duties, or when they are clear from those priority duties. Sergeant Neus indicated that a manpower shortage currently exists. Sergeant Neus testified that the parking is regulated by ADOA [Arizona Department of Administration] rules and that no signs need to be posted. Sergeant Neus testified that this particular parking lot has and continues to have this problem with people parking outside the lines of the parking spaces. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Department of Administration has authority over rules for control of traffic and parking on state property with respect to, among other things: the place, method and time of parking, and nonparking areas. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-796. 2. In this matter, the Department bore the burden to prove the parking violation alleged and charged in Citation No. 12379. 3. The evidence of record in this matter shows that Appellant had parked in an area in Lot K at 1700 W. Washington which is not designated as a parking space at this location. 4. Based on the foregoing, Citation No. 12379 is upheld. ORDER Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Citation No. 12379 is upheld, with a fine in the amount of $20.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, notwithstanding the language contained in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-1092.08, based on a standing motion of J. Elliot Hibbs, Director of the Department of Administration, this decision is the final administrative decision. Any request for rehearing must be forwarded to the Department pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-6-207 and A.R.S. §41- 1092.09(A). This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.08(H). ORDERED and DATED this day, April 13, 2001.

______________________________________ Kay A. Abramsohn Administrative Law Judge

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

J. Elliott Hibbs, Director 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 PH(602) 542-9826/ FAX 542-9827