[bestclipperfan]

Hi I'm new to this . I recently received a ticket for parking in a handicap space . I have a friend that is handicapped but he does not have a placard because he can't drive.I was just outside my car no more than 5-10 feet away . I moved my car away from the handicap space in front of the officer and I still received the ticket even when I was explaining to the officer that I am moving my car . What forms can my friend obtain so I can prove it was an unjust mistake . Was it wrong what I did Please help me!.

[HelpinHere]

Really, it's your word against the officer's. I may be wrong, but unless the officer saw that you were helping your friend from a handicapped space, then immediately moving out of it, or can prove that, then you could still get into trouble...
I could be wrong though, it's happened before! XD

[Fr_Chuck]

If you or the other person did not have a permit, there is no form to use, you pay the fine since you were in the wrong.

Your friend does not have to own a car to get a window card ( at least in my state)

If you were parked, even for a couple minutes in a handicap space, you deserve a ticket, that is plain and simple.

Officer say you in space and gave you a ticket.

If your friend is handicap, you could let him get a permit for handicap parking, appeal in court with you, explain he did not have the permit yet but does not.

But most likely since you did not have one at the time, you will still pay the fine.

And I will add a personal note which I normally don't.

I am glad this officer did give you one, I as a handicap person, get so angry when I go to park and there are non handicap cars in the spaces. I personally wish they would just boot and tow every car illegally blocking the handicap parking.

So hope you don't get a handicap judge or one who has a handicap family member

[N0help4u]

You have to have the handicap thing or else there is no way around it.

It doesn't matter that he doesn't drive. That is specifically why they came out with the ones that hang on the mirror rather than having it on the license plate.

[JudyKayTee]

In NY you CANNOT park in a handicapped spot without a permit AND unless the handicapped person is with you - no hanging the handicapped tag and then running into the store by yourself.

And I'll add a personal note - my husband was handicapped. I often couldn't find a parking spot because cars without handicapped tags were parked in handicapped spaces. Most frustrating.

If you don't have a handicapped tag you cannot park in a handicapped spot.

You parked in a handicapped space without a handicapped tag and were given a ticket. Why do you think this is unfair?

[s_cianci]

Your best bet would be to have your friend appear in court with you and testify as to his condition and that you had temporarily parked in the handicapped spot for his benefit. Even though your friend doesn't drive, anyone who regularly transports him in their vehicle should be able to obtain a handicapped placard on his behalf.

[JudyKayTee]

Your best bet would be to have your friend appear in court with you and testify as to his condition and that you had temporarily parked in the handicapped spot for his benefit. Even though your friend doesn't drive, anyone who regularly transports him in their vehicle should be able to obtain a handicapped placard on his behalf.

It's the "condition" at the time, not whether he could/should/would have had a handicapped permit.

If you are arrested for driving without a license the charge doesn't get dismissed when you show up in Court with your new license.

If there was no handicapped hang tag, OP most definitely will be fined.

Please post your info if you have a site which states that "should be able" is a legal defense.

[s_cianci]

Please post your info if you have a site which states that "should be able" is a legal defense.

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 more so than justice. However, whether 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.

[JudyKayTee]

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.

You are obviously a fly by the seat of your pants person.

You see someone without a handicapped sticker parking in a handicapped space as a case which will cause new case law to be written?

And I'd like to know your legal background, how many hours you've spent in the Courtroom (other than your own child support and bankruptcy matters), how many semesters of law school you have.

You are correct - I'm a "by the book" kind of person. Law is a "by the book" profession.

Whether I'm a good law student or a good Attorney or a good Judge is YOUR opinion. I stand by my conclusion that your statement that the person should now get a handicapped "permit" and that will be negate the ticket to be preposterous and legally incorrect.

And I MUST disagree that if the Judge rules against this person the handicapped activists will be angry. Quite to the contrary, I believe that if a Judge rules FOR this person the activists will be angry - and I will be one of them. As I said, my husband was handicapped. Many times the handicapped spots were filled with cars without permits and it turned into a drop him off/park the car/help him inside situation.

If the passenger IS handicapped, then he/she should obtain a handicapped hang tag - if not, park in a non-handicapped spot.

That's the law. Your argument about the Appellate Division and so forth is meaningless when you are talking about a traffic ticket. Writes well, reads well but is way off base.

This isn't the public debate site. This is the legal thread. You have consistently been giving incorrect info on various threads. I'd be happy to post some of them if you would like. I believe this is one of them.

This thread seems to bear a resemblance to your "this may be technically" correct answer, also way off the mark. In that case you also saw loopholes. Interesting to me because I actually work on these discrimination cases - how many have you taken part in?

"Techically correct" DOES matter when you are referring to the Law. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/credit...on-376463.html

Here's another one you "doubted" - even though it IS the law. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-...ml#post1861076

You also don't think a Court-ordered revocation of parental rights in Texas is permanent OR negates the child support responsibility. Wrong. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family...-376180-2.html

So why are you arguing here?

[Fr_Chuck]

A judge may do all sorts of things and sometimes ( esp city judges in traffic court) will let people off because of "who they are" "who they know" and so on.
I saw one boy get overnight in jail for opening his mouth about a speeding ticket one time.
And I see all sorts of underage drinkers get off when their parents say good things in court.

So while this would be a defense to use, in most cases having anyone give a reason for breaking the law, it is not suppose to make a difference

[N0help4u]

I see it all too and Sciani is right that Judges and other authorities go (as he put it by the spirit) I call it by their MOOD. Maybe taking the friend will help if you get the right Judge, in the right mood, at the right time but WE here really can't and shouldn't get peoples hopes up that maybe they can get out of something because WE said.
Its nice to give ideas that may or may not work but as others point out this is the law board and we are here to state the law rather than get into a Judges head or moods.