« Ind. Courts - "Attention Turns To Science In Rape Trial" | Main | Courts - More on: James Bopp Jr. to represent newly elected Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice »

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Ind. Courts - More questions on: A new Indianapolis parking citations court will open Dec. 1st

This is the third ILB entry this week on the new "court." The most recent earlier entry, from Dec. 2nd, asked:

My questions continue with today's story. Don't "courts" require judges with some sort of authority even if they are not lawyers, rather than these employees of the contracted parking ticket company? And what kind of procedural rules apply?
Article III of the Indianapolis - Marion County Municipal Code deals with the "Ordinance Violations Bureau." Sec. 103-52 sets out the provisions and penalties. Note that Sec. 103-51 provides:
Violations of the Code (or ordinance) provisions set forth in the schedule in section 103-52 are designated as subject to admissions of violation and payment of the designated civil penalty in an amount not exceeding any limitation under IC 33-36-2-3 in accordance with the procedures of this article.

Sec. 103-59 deals with procedure on denial of violation, failure to appear, or failure to pay. If a person fails to timely admit the violation and pay the civil penalty, then under Sec. 103-59, "the violations clerk shall report such circumstances to the city prosecutor for appropriate administrative or judicial proceedings against such person." In other words, the ordinance violation bureau does not appear to be the forum to contest a parking ticket.

Note also Sec. 103-60 - Limitations:

The civil penalties specified in this article shall apply only to violations admitted as provided in this article and shall be considered offers in compromise. If administrative or judicial proceedings are initiated for such violation, the specific penalties for such violation or the general penalties of the Code shall be applicable to the violation.
Article IV covers "Administrative Adjudication of Parking Citations."

These are the "parking courts."

Sec. 103-72:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that parking citations which are not resolved pursuant to the enforcement procedures under Article III of this chapter may be subject to enforcement in administrative proceedings as provided in this article.
However, as one reads further, the procedures contemplated by Art. IV may not jive with the new "court" procedures described in the newspaper at the Guardian Home and as shown on Channel 6 TV (although a video, apparently no longer available, showed a clerk reading "Pursuant to Art. IV ..."). What is contemplated by Article IV is a full administrative hearing, with formal notice, prehearing procedures (Sec. 103-75), formal hearing procedures (Sec. 103-76) including:
A party may present evidence in the form of testimony, affidavits and documentation, engage in argument, and conduct cross-examination. A party may participate in person or by counsel at the party's own expense; if the party is not an individual or is incompetent to participate, then the party shall participate by a duly authorized representative.
In addition, the hearing officer shall cause an audio recording of the hearing to be made at the expense of the city.

Finally, Sec. 103-79 provides:

Petition for review of decision; time limitation.

(a) A verified petition for review of the decision of a hearing officer, stating the alleged error and any factual or legal basis therefor, may be filed in the circuit or superior court of Marion County within thirty (30) days after the day on which the decision is rendered. A party who does not file an appeal within this time period forfeits the right to appeal.

(b) Any party who files a verified petition for review shall within fifteen (15) days thereafter secure from the hearing officer a certified copy of the record of the hearing, and file the same with the clerk of the court.

(c) An extension of time within which to file the record may be granted by the court upon a showing of good cause, which shall include the petitioner's inability to obtain the certified copy of the record with fifteen (15) days.

(d) The failure of a party to file a certified copy of the record or to secure an extension of time therefor shall be cause for dismissal of the petition for review upon motion of any party of record.

(So what do you do if you got a ticket because of a broken meter? It looks like your only real cost and time effective option is to just pay the fine.)

For more, read this entry in conjunction with this one posted today at the Ogden on Politics Blog.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 5, 2009 07:16 PM
Posted to Indiana Government | Indiana Law