Originally Posted by
s_cianci
Judy, you're obviously a "go by the book" kind of person. Makes for a good law student but not necessarily a good lawyer. And certainly not a good judge, at least not in the public's opinion. You see, there is such a thing as the "spirit" of the law as well as the "letter" of the law. If this weren't true then there'd never be any controversial court rulings, would there? If the law were such an exact science then there'd be no need for appellate courts and 90% of the people who earn their living practicing law in this country would starve. Ask yourself, using the topic of this thread as an example, what is the purpose of handicapped parking spaces and the laws governing them? In general, it's to provide as easy as possible access for disabled people to get from their vehicles to whatever facility they're visiting. That's why handicapped spaces are located near the entrance or near facilities designed specifically for handicapped access such as ramps or lifts. Also I'm sure you've noticed that handicapped spaces are wider than normal parking spaces. This is to accommodate the often extra-large vehicles that contain wheelchair lifts and the like and to allow the necessary space for these items to maneuver properly. Now, let's look at the situation and "facts" at hand. Granted I'm taking the OP at face value but that's all we have to go on. Now, the OP, while not disabled, was transporting a disabled passenger. The OP didn't have a handicapped placard, presumably due to not being disabled himself/herself and probably doesn't transport this friend on a regular basis. However, since (s)he was transporting this disabled friend this one time, (s)he parked in the handicapped spot so this friend could have access to whatever facility (s)he was transporting him to and this is a totally appropriate use of handicapped parking spaces and the very reason for their existence! Then, as soon as his/her passenger was safely on his way (s)he moved the car out of the handicapped spot (so that it'd be available for someone else who may need it.) However, the police officer who was present gave him/her a summons anyhow. Now granted, police officers often do indeed go "by the book" since their job is enforcement moreso than justice. However, whether or not a placard was present, the OP made appropriate use of the handicapped parking space. And any judge worth his/her salt is going to recognize that. Now that's not to say that the police officer who gave the ticket did anything wrong because (s)he didn't. But the OP has every right to contest the ticket and present evidence that his/her use of the handicapped spot was in fact appropriate. Now the state's evidence is the testimony of the officer who gave the ticket that the OP parked in a handicapped spot without a placard (if (s)he even bothers to show up in court to testify in the first place.) So yes, given all of the facts and circumstances, at least what the OP has told us, (s)he should fight this ticket and should have a pretty good chance. Let's face it ; if the judge rules against the OP, (s)he won't exactly endear him/herself to the cause of handicapped activists! Where the prosecution has the edge in a situation like this is that since it is a misdemeanor offense and the potential penalties involved are relatively small, going through a complete appeals process that could potentially result in new case law is not cost-justified.
