Here is what I have to blog about:
Yesterday I was the defense attorney for KU's Traffic Court of Appeals, meaning I represented two persons who received tickets they believed to be unwarranted. At KU, rather than immediately pay your ticket, you may within 10 business days appeal the ticket for a hearing in front of KU's Kansas Senate endorsed Traffic Court. First year students apply to be attorneys, and are assigned cases. Second and third year students function as justices, deciding ex parte cases and hearing argued cases.
Two weeks ago I received my assignment; I met with my clients, corresponded with opposing council, collected evidence (supporting facts, photographs of the site of the citation, supporting testimonies) and presented my two cases before the court last night. The trials follow normal court procedure very closely, with the defense attorney (me!) stating the case, entering the appellant's appearance, and calling witnesses. Following witness testimony, attorneys give closing statements, arguing the facts and the supporting evidence entered into the court, with some counterargument of the opposing side's stated case.
Glossing over some of the details that may fall under attorney client privilege (not sure, but good to be safe...) I will share what is a matter of public record:
Delma Hepner, a retiree of the University who worked for KU for over twenty years and now volunteers at the Spencer Art Museum, received a citation for parking in a lane that exists in front of the museum and includes one handicapped parking space. According to Ms. Hepner and other faculty of the museum, including its Assistant Director Carolyn Lewis, this area is commonly used as short term parking and a loading/unloading zone, as long as parked cars are not obstructing the flow of traffic through the lane or making the handicapped space inaccessible. Previous en banc decisions of the traffic court (decisions reached by the entire body of judges instead of a panel of three) serve as precedent, and a 1978 case held that in the case there are ambiguous situations which may mislead persons as to appropriate parking, it is the university's responsibility to clear them up.
Opposing council argued that the lack of perpendicular lines should have alerted Ms. Hepner to the fact that the space was undesignated. Further, prosecution contended that Ms. Hepner had not sought reasonable authority before concluding that parking in that space was appropriate. (i.e., that the Assistant Director of the museum, not a member of parking services staff, was not sufficiently authoritative to be depended upon in parking matters)
Precedent case for the prosecution was the decision of University v. Carberry, held that a person who claimed parking in a space was "common practice" and that therefore the appellant's mistake was reasonable, was errononeous. Incorrect usage of parking spaces does not "ripen" into a license to illegally park.
After deliberation, a 2-1 decision of the court was to relieve Ms. Hepner of her citation.
Next case, University v. Mellor -
Mr. Mellor woke up ill on the morning in question with severe abdominal pain. He rushed himself to Watkins Health Center and upon arrival, found that he had only a few pieces of change for the metered parking in front of the clinic. Not a university permit holder, Mr. Mellor was left with no other options for parking beyond driving around the block to park off campus. Because of his painful and panicked state, he just fed the change he had found into the meter and rushed into the clinic, where he was examined, diagnosed with kidney stones, and subsequently treated in a manner that involved being confined to a bed on fluids for the four hour duration of his stay. Upon release, Mr. Mellor discovered he had received two parking citations for parking in an expired metered parking space.
The University policy on these particular metered parking stalls in front of Watkins Health Center is that, should a person prove they were admitted to Watkins Health Center an hour or more before receiving the first citation, they are to be released from the ticket. The meters in this location are one hour maximum meters, which means they max out after a person pays for an hour of time. Mr. Mellor did not pay for an hour of time in the space and the first citation was entered twenty minutes after he checked in to Watkins.
Defense (me!) argued that Mr. Mellor was in a state of severe pain, a condition that constituted an emergency visit and admission to Watkins Health Center. He made a good faith effort to pay the meter with the change he had available. Gauging the reasonableness of his efforts, it's important to apply a standard of reasonable behavior that is adjusted by the severity of his pain and his condition, a condition which led doctors to keep him at the Center for four hours for treatment. He was unable to leave during that time to move the car. Citing University v. George, defense pointed out that the court has held that the University shall not prioritize adherence to parking regulations over the health of a student, especially one suffering from a condition that can reasonably be said to impair their ability to proactively secure change before leaving their house for the hospital.
Prosecution countered that the rule clearly states its terms, and that the George case involves a person who had made an appointment with Watkins and found no parking, metered or permitted, in the lot upon arrival. George parked in a handicapped space because of insufficient spaces. Mellor, however, had available metered parking which he failed to appropriately pay for.
Following deliberation, a 2-1 decision of the court relieved Mr. Mellor of his citation.
If you got through all that, great. If you didn't, what it all boils down to - I WON! Twice.
Opposing council argued that the lack of perpendicular lines should have alerted Ms. Hepner to the fact that the space was undesignated. Further, prosecution contended that Ms. Hepner had not sought reasonable authority before concluding that parking in that space was appropriate. (i.e., that the Assistant Director of the museum, not a member of parking services staff, was not sufficiently authoritative to be depended upon in parking matters)
Precedent case for the prosecution was the decision of University v. Carberry, held that a person who claimed parking in a space was "common practice" and that therefore the appellant's mistake was reasonable, was errononeous. Incorrect usage of parking spaces does not "ripen" into a license to illegally park.
After deliberation, a 2-1 decision of the court was to relieve Ms. Hepner of her citation.
Next case, University v. Mellor -
Mr. Mellor woke up ill on the morning in question with severe abdominal pain. He rushed himself to Watkins Health Center and upon arrival, found that he had only a few pieces of change for the metered parking in front of the clinic. Not a university permit holder, Mr. Mellor was left with no other options for parking beyond driving around the block to park off campus. Because of his painful and panicked state, he just fed the change he had found into the meter and rushed into the clinic, where he was examined, diagnosed with kidney stones, and subsequently treated in a manner that involved being confined to a bed on fluids for the four hour duration of his stay. Upon release, Mr. Mellor discovered he had received two parking citations for parking in an expired metered parking space.
The University policy on these particular metered parking stalls in front of Watkins Health Center is that, should a person prove they were admitted to Watkins Health Center an hour or more before receiving the first citation, they are to be released from the ticket. The meters in this location are one hour maximum meters, which means they max out after a person pays for an hour of time. Mr. Mellor did not pay for an hour of time in the space and the first citation was entered twenty minutes after he checked in to Watkins.
Defense (me!) argued that Mr. Mellor was in a state of severe pain, a condition that constituted an emergency visit and admission to Watkins Health Center. He made a good faith effort to pay the meter with the change he had available. Gauging the reasonableness of his efforts, it's important to apply a standard of reasonable behavior that is adjusted by the severity of his pain and his condition, a condition which led doctors to keep him at the Center for four hours for treatment. He was unable to leave during that time to move the car. Citing University v. George, defense pointed out that the court has held that the University shall not prioritize adherence to parking regulations over the health of a student, especially one suffering from a condition that can reasonably be said to impair their ability to proactively secure change before leaving their house for the hospital.
Prosecution countered that the rule clearly states its terms, and that the George case involves a person who had made an appointment with Watkins and found no parking, metered or permitted, in the lot upon arrival. George parked in a handicapped space because of insufficient spaces. Mellor, however, had available metered parking which he failed to appropriately pay for.
Following deliberation, a 2-1 decision of the court relieved Mr. Mellor of his citation.
.JPG)
Yea! for our side!!!
ReplyDelete