I received a parking ticket for parking in an area prohibited by city ordinance.
There were absolutely no signs posted, but the hearing officer told me that “ignorance of the law is no defense”. Are people reasonably expected to memorize the entire code of the city? Needless to say, he didn’t let me out of the ticket ($75)
The specific infraction was parking under a wide viaduct (it was in a quiet residential area and not a main thoroughfare). Now some people might say it’s obvious that this would be a violation, but it wasn’t obvious to me, since it isn’t in the official State of Illinois “Rules of the Road” where a lot of other “obvious” prohibitions are stated, like not blocking a roadway, or not parking in front of a fire hydrant, etc.
It also wasn’t obvious to me because the curb under that viaduct is usually packed with parked vehicles, and I never saw tickets on them before I parked there. Now that is no legal defense, just a personal defense against those of you who might say “it’s common sense”.
The ordinance was changed or added in 1992.
So anyway, what is the proper response to “ignorance is no defense” if we’re talking about a local ordinance?
IANAL but IIRC from my criminal law class, the legislature is required to take reasonable action to publicize any changes in the law. Unfortunately, simply publishing them pretty much fulfils that requirement. I’d go with the insufficient signage defense in combination with a nolo plea and hope for a reduction in the fine.
“Parking under a wide viaduct”? Is it legal to park under a narrow one?
Also take pix of the other cars parked illegally where you were. That will add credence to your claim of insufficient signage. I once went to traffic court with evidence like that and had my ticket discharged. It’s worth a shot.
Take it to court.
I was advised by a cop (on another Board), that quite often, cops are too busy to show for traffic ticket trials. If you go to trial, & the cop don’t show, they have to drop the charges, because your accuser/ principle witness will not appear against you.
Also, you can get trials re-scheduled, within certain bounds. So, pick a day just before or just after a 3-day holiday weekend. The cop may skip, just to keep the holiday.
Good point. So, to those who recommended taking to court: Will this just save the OP $75, or will it make the city put up signs, thus saving countless other drivers hassle and money?
Well if I didn’t make it clear in my OP, I did go to a hearing by an adjudicator. That’s how the city of Chicago handles parking tickets. I did bring pictures of the area, and I did use the defense that there was no signage and that the state has no law against parking under a viaduct.
He’s the guy that said “nevertheless, ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
My point is, how much can the law reasonably expect the average citizen to know? This wasn’t something obviously unethical that I did. What if the city just decided that a block was off-limits to parking but failed to post signs? How the heck am I supposed to know about every ordinance passed by the city? Is parking under a viaduct so obviously the wrong thing to do? Your opinions on that last question would be appreciated.
I was going to pay it, but the problem now is the ticket has doubled to $150. I can file a petition to have this case heard in court, which I may do, if I can figure out a sufficient defense, because obviously, pointing out that there was no sign and providing proof of those conditions are not good enough. I hope the filing doesn’t cost me a lot.
Yep. Contest on this. Illinois (or at least Chicago) has 7 points under which you can contest parking tickets. Obscured or non-existant signage is one of them. Send a letter clearly stating your case, and provide whatever evidence you have. You will receive a response in about a month or two. The last statistic I read, something like 50 or 60% of tickets get thrown out at this stage. It’s worth fighting.
Oh, crap. I missed your last post. Never mind. At this point, you might as well pay the ticket. You still have legal options, but that requires you to file an appeal (which, unless you have good legal precedent to go by, will probably get struck down), and that costs more money than the ticket. Sorry.
Hell, SCOTUS ruled that ignorance of the fact that one needs to file a freaken TAX RETURN is an excuse. He is getting his law from re-runs of Law and Order, not the laws of his state.:rolleyes:
I have had tickets dismissed becuase of poor signage before.
Oh, the SCOTUS thing is good, can you give me a cite or link? Your description is too broad and vague for me to search. Maybe I can use that case to establish precedence.
After review of the back of a friend’s “violation notice” I notice that it does, indeed say “By ordinance there are only 7 grounds for contesting a Violation Notice …
3. The relevant signs prohibiting or restricting parking were missing or obscured”
I’m steamed. Why didn’t that “Administrative Law Officer” give me a break, especially after I presented him with pictures of the viaduct without signage? He just kept telling me that some laws are obvious and not every place has a sign.
Is it OBVIOUS TO YOU ALL THAT PARKING UNDER A VIADUCT IS ILLEGAL? Tonight I passed the place of my violation, and again, that little half block is packed with cars with not a ticket in sight. It appears it’s not obvious to half the population in the neighborhood.
If there is no signage that states anything and there is NO LAW one way or the other on the books, it seems to me that the “adjudicator” is the one that is ignorant of the law. How can you be expected to know about a non-existent law? The amount of $75 may not be a big amount, but I would think that it would be the principle of the thing at this point.
North Carolina passed a law that made it mandatory for cars to move into an inner lane when passing law enforcement vehicles stopped on the shoulder. The first I heard about it, was newspapers articles describing legal battles against some citations. Last month, a judge threw out the citations–said the state had to do a better job of publicizing the law.
