Today I spent early afternoon at the new Indianapolis Parking Violation Court located in the Guardian's Home in Irvington. I had long wanted to see how the court operated. The only feedback I had heard was a media report four people who initially had hearings in the court walked away with their $40 tickets turned into $250 fines when they dared challenge their tickets in court.
Kara Kenney of Channel 6 news did a report on the court and wanted to interview me. So I met her at the court when I found out it would be in session.
The regular judge of the court, Dennis Pappenmeier, did not preside. I don't know if it was a coincidence or because because of the presence of WRTV or me or both, but administrative law judge John Krause arrived about 15-20 minutes late to preside over the court instead of Pappenmier. I know Pappenmier. Great guy but unlike Krause, Pappenmeier is not an attorney. Given the number of attorneys who are desperate for any employment these days, there is no reason to not have a non-attorney presiding as a judge anywhere, especially not in a city of over 800,000 people.
Kara Kenney of Channel 6 news did a report on the court and wanted to interview me. So I met her at the court when I found out it would be in session.
The regular judge of the court, Dennis Pappenmeier, did not preside. I don't know if it was a coincidence or because because of the presence of WRTV or me or both, but administrative law judge John Krause arrived about 15-20 minutes late to preside over the court instead of Pappenmier. I know Pappenmier. Great guy but unlike Krause, Pappenmeier is not an attorney. Given the number of attorneys who are desperate for any employment these days, there is no reason to not have a non-attorney presiding as a judge anywhere, especially not in a city of over 800,000 people.
When the City announced the new parking violation court in a press release months ago, it gleefully warned that defendants who challenge their tickets would be facing a $2500 fine. To me it was reminiscent of Traffic Court where motorists enter with $150 tickets and walk away with fines of $449.50 or $549.50 if they dare ask for their day in court. (That's why we also named the Parking Violation Court in our injunction lawsuit against Traffic Court.) The Indiana General Assembly felt so adamant that motorists should not be fined for asking for their day in court that it overwhelmingly passed a law stripping traffic court of authority to fine motorists for choosing to go to trial. It was clear that the Parking Violations Court intended to go down the same path employing some hairbrained, fadish"Six Sigma" strategy to maximize parking fine revenue by threatening people with maximum fines should they ask for their day in court.
Today I heard what I believe was a Citation Services Collection (the company that runs the parking fine system in Indianapolis) employee tell the Channel 6 reporter that they've never fined anyone $2500. She did admit to the reporter though that they have assessed "court costs" of as much as $150 on top of the tickets most of which are $40.
I am not sure what the authority is for doing that. The maximum statutory court costs for moving violations is around $70. Not sure why the allowable court cost for a parking violation would be that much higher. Imposing a $150 "court cost" on a $40 ticket could have a chilling effect on those wanting their day in court.
Nothing though compared to what certainly appears to be a fatal flaw in the proceedings. ALJ Krause pointed out correctly that the City had the burden of proof and only had to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The City attempted to meet this burden by having a person who I believe was a Citation Service Collection employee (not the one who handed out the ticket) read the ticket into the record. Then supposedly the burden switched to the defendant to counter that evidence.
Here is the problem. Without the person who wrote the ticket, the introduction of the ticket is hearsay. While hearsay is allowed in an administrative law proceeding, under Indiana law it cannot be the sole piece of evidence upon which a judgment is based. That is Administrative Law 101. If the City has nothing more than a CSC employee reading the ticket into the record, the ALJ should be finding in favor of every parking defendant. My guess is that our woefully inexperienced leadership at City Legal failed to instruct CSC on that little legal requirement which the failure to follow should invalidate every parking case decided in favor of the City.
Nothing though compared to what certainly appears to be a fatal flaw in the proceedings. ALJ Krause pointed out correctly that the City had the burden of proof and only had to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The City attempted to meet this burden by having a person who I believe was a Citation Service Collection employee (not the one who handed out the ticket) read the ticket into the record. Then supposedly the burden switched to the defendant to counter that evidence.
Here is the problem. Without the person who wrote the ticket, the introduction of the ticket is hearsay. While hearsay is allowed in an administrative law proceeding, under Indiana law it cannot be the sole piece of evidence upon which a judgment is based. That is Administrative Law 101. If the City has nothing more than a CSC employee reading the ticket into the record, the ALJ should be finding in favor of every parking defendant. My guess is that our woefully inexperienced leadership at City Legal failed to instruct CSC on that little legal requirement which the failure to follow should invalidate every parking case decided in favor of the City.
6 comments:
Thanks for letting us know about the proceedings, about which you are aware, at the Indianapolis Parking Violation court. So glad to know that it has been named in the pending injunction lawsuit against Traffic Court!
Let's be frank, Paul. There is an iron curtain descending across all of America.
No American has a memory of freedom, and those who were young in the 70's an 80's have experienced a steady and swift erosion of freedoms.
Those who were young in the 90's and 00's have no memory of freedom and were taught a blind obedience to authority.
The more innings this game is played, the more tyrannical America will become. With America being profoundly conformist, those who oppose this inexorable noose-tightening will be reviled and outed by their countrymen.
Think about it, Paul.
$2500? for a parking meter that ran out? NUTS !
HEI,
Supposedly the ordinance allows fines up to that amount. I'll have to check it out. Regardless, I don't think you can levy such a fine because the person asked for a trial. It would have to be for the particular facts of the case. Let's say someone has a history of parking violations. Then a greater penalty might be warranted. It can't be though because the person asked for a trial.
I have a letter from citation collection that I failed to open saying I had a court date scheduled for February 23, 2012 regarding a parking citation I received. I have been so worried about how to handle the situation because I could have sworn I paid it and today I found the copy of the ticket along with the receipt of payment. I'm not sure why I even have to go to court. Can someone explain to me why I have a court date on a ticket I paid in full on 06/09/2011? Please Help.
I have a letter from citation collection that I failed to open saying I had a court date scheduled for February 23, 2012 regarding a parking citation I received. I have been so worried about how to handle the situation because I could have sworn I paid it and today I found the copy of the ticket along with the receipt of payment. I'm not sure why I even have to go to court. Can someone explain to me why I have a court date on a ticket I paid in full on 06/09/2011? Please Help.
Post a Comment