Meter maid in San Francisco blocks the way, and issues the parking ticket while the driver is present While driving in San Francisco, I got a cell phone call that I had to take. So I stopped at the metered space for maybe 2 minutes to take a call. Next thing I see is a parking enforcement car behind me with a lady writing me a ticket. Her vehicle blocking my way out. I honked asking to get out, but she just walked up and put it under the wiper blade even though I am in the car with the engine running. When I said "Excuse me!" there was no answer, like I don't exist. I took the ticket and pushed it into the opening in her car. But now I found the citation online: TRC7.2.26 YELLOW ZONE $91.00 7.2.26 says: "To Park in a yellow zone indicated by yellow paint on the curb or signage ... Non-commercial vehicles shall not be Parked in a yellow zone in excess of a period of three minutes, during which the operator must be in attendance ...". Wikipedia defines parking as "(an) act of stopping and disengaging a vehicle and leaving it unoccupied." My questions: Vehicle wasn't unoccupied, and also it wasn't disengaged. Am I right that this is an unlawfully issued citation (not an instance of "parking")? Can the parking enforcement vehicle block the way out for the vehicle it issues citation for? Can the parking enforcement officer ignore the honking and still proceed in issuing a ticket? I was there more than 3 minutes only because I was blocked by the parking enforcement vehicle. Does 7.2.26 still apply if the vehicle is blocked from leaving?
The California Vehicle Code defines parking as: “Park or parking” shall mean the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers SF gives precedence to the Vehicle Code, but also defines parking here: To park or stop a vehicle, as defined in the Vehicle Code, or to cause or permit a vehicle to be parked or stopped, unless the context requires a different meaning. Stopping constitutes parking, and that is pretty much all there is to that, I am afraid to say. Being unoccupied or disengaged (shut off) isn't necessary.
According to this press release, Toronto is "stepping up enforcement" of its leash by-law. You should call 311 to report violations: http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/29/101000050429.html You can find more information here: http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/47/101000050447.html http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=b6c9dada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD You can find a list of areas where dogs are permitted to be unleashed here: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=5a81dada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=b6c9dada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD I note, however, that the press release says that "A dog is considered running at large if it is unleashed, off its owner's property and not under its owner's control." Reading this strictly, where all three conditions must be met, a dog owner is permitted to unleash a dog if it is still possible for the owner to control the dog. I don't know how the courts have interpreted this, but it could certainly be interpreted very widely.
I doubt that you will find an official answer to that question. No law allows you to block passing (even if passing is illegal). Therefore, you must allow passing. There are laws against obstructing traffic. Japanese law addresses this, defining obstructing progress as starting to move or continuing to move in circumstances that would likely cause another vehicle or streetcar to have to suddenly change speed or direction in order to avoid danger You'd have to specify how you intend to &quot;not let&quot; a person pass you, but I can't imagine what you could do that would not be &quot;obstructing progress&quot;. A recent anti-road rage law allows license revocation for violation.
Can you get a ticket? Absolutely. You're relying on the knowledge of the person issuing you the ticket. How knowledgeable are they? In my experiences around the world, people enforcing laws on a day to day basis know surprisingly little about the law (although they often think they know everything). I think this part of the code you mentioned might be relevant: 5200.(a) When two license plates are issued by the department for use upon a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for which they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear. But "the department" likely refers to the Department of Motor Vehicles in the State of California, which never issued you anything. But that may not stop eager law enforcement personnel from issuing you a ticket. If you do receive a ticket, I think you'll successfully be able to fight it and win. It will be obvious to a judge that there is nothing you could have done to reasonably avoid the issue. Just make sure you have documents showing that you only moved very recently. According to the the State of California's official Department of Motor Vehicles website, you have only 20 days to get your registration (and likely the state's mandatory insurance) switched to your new state. See https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/howto/htvr09#reg I have no idea how vigorously they enforce the law there. It's likely up to the whims of the people in charge of enforcing it.
A related post is here. Are police required to record in car dashcam video for traffic tickets in NJ, USA? Probably not. Is there any way to find out if they aren’t telling the truth? Ask and hope you are not lied to. Can I contact the police chief, mayor, or municipal judge? You can contact the police chief or mayor if you can get through to them. They are not required to answer you unless you make a formal discovery request or public records request. You cannot make ex parte contact with a judge when the other side's lawyer (in this case, the city's lawyer) is not present. How can I defend myself in court trial if the judge always believes highly credible police officers over defendants if I don’t have video? You can tell your side of the story under oath with any details that makes your story believable. You are correct that the judge will usually believe the police officer and not you. So, usually you will lose. This is one reason that most people try to plea bargain their traffic tickets, rather than going to trial. Due process rights give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story when contesting a ticket, but it doesn't give you a right to win (even if you are actually in the right) if the judge or other trier of fact doesn't believe what you have to say. It does not appear that you have a right to a jury trial in a traffic case in New Jersey, although this depends to some extent on the kind of violation being charged, so you are probably stuck with the beliefs of the municipal court judge about who is the more credible witness.
Stop: possibly The standard for initiating a traffic stop is named after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968): Terry stop. The standard is rather simple: Initiating the stop only requires reasonable suspicion. If their computer claims that the driver's license of the car owner is expired or suspended, that is reasonable suspicion to at least stop the car to check if the owner is driving it and if the license really is expired. Arrest: possibly To facilitate an arrest, the next level of scrutiny is needed: probable cause. Generally, there is little requirement on when a police report is to be written, but contemporary reports (at the same time or close to) are typical. Example of rising through the ranks Alice, 16 years old, dent in the fender from a fenderbender. That is not even a warning's worth and does not rise reasonable suspicion. Bob cop's computer still reads the license plate and Bob gets a flashing light: the car owner's license is expired. That is reasonable suspicion that there is an offense if the owner and Alice are the same person. But Bob needs to verify that. The reasonable suspicion can go away if for example the car was owned by Charles, a 60-year-old gentleman, then the suspicion that Alice's license is expired goes away. But the stop in itself was reasonable! Bob starts the ticket after stopping Alice, then passes the car to get to Alice. Looking in he sees that behind Alice lies a box stamped &quot;Top Secret - US President's Eyes Only&quot; all over. Bob arrests Alice for the probable cause of possibly possessing those documents illegally. The documents were in plain sight, so no search was needed btw.
One specific Florida statute, 316.605 covers this matter directly: ...and all letters, numerals, printing, writing, the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front. Italics mine. A Jacksonville, FL lawyer's blog references a drug case in which the driver was pulled over because the frame around the plate partially obscured the legends at the top and bottom of the plate, typically a state slogan and/or county or other &quot;insignificant&quot; information. Irrespective to this question, the traffic stop was rejected, as the officer was able to read that information as well as the identification information contained in the tag number. The linked article goes on to suggest that one might get away with it if only the legends are obscured, but it appears that the lawyer's opinion also depends on the judge. In the case of the supplied photo above, it's quite obscured and would create a citing offense if an officer arose from the wrong side of the sleeping furniture. Other states might be determined by searching [state name] obscured license plate. User65535 (a rather large binary-1 number) has presented an answer that I see as an omission on my part. Your primary question is how to get around the obscuration of the tag. You have a number of disadvantages. No trailer hitch means the bike rack is less than solidly mounted, and would not provide a suitable attachment point for a remote tag mount. No trailer hitch means no trailer wiring, which would have been used for a tag light and possibly remote brake lights and turn signal lights, although it's debatable if yours are truly obscured. Aiming at only relocating the tag, you'd still have to have the ability to illuminate the plate, which mean you'll tap into that wiring lead in some manner. The answer may be magnets. Magnets with a light and bracket to hold the tag. You'd want to pull the tag and lock it in the trunk when you are away from the vehicle, as creating a convenient magnet mount means convenience for someone to walk by and snap it free of the mount. I'd bet that the lower part of the car is plastic, but the lower right corner of the trunk lid may support magnets. Additionally, one could consider a strap-through mount. The plate frame (with lights) would be mounted on sturdy fabric straps with parachute clips that lock inside the trunk and wrap around the appropriate portions of the trunk, placing the tag in a visible location, again perhaps the lower right corner.
The ordinance is not very specific about how notice is to be given: therefore, it need not be in writing, and it need not be sent by mail. It would not be surprising if the "notification" came in the form of a city person inspecting the reported obstruction, walking up to the house and knocking and finding nobody home (thus triggering the "In case the owner cannot be found" condition), whereupon the city removes the rocks. That clause does not mean "In case we do not know who the owner is", it almost certainly means "in case the owner cannot be contacted immediately". Article III is in general about obstructions on streets, which are not allowed, except by permit in section 78 under "Permit to Obstruct Traffic Lane". Assuming that no obstruction permit was obtained, what usually happens is that an officer is sent to tell the owner to remove the obstruction (more or less immediately), and if nobody is at the site whom they can tell, they probably won't go any further (e.g. asking neighbors where the owner is). There is no legal definition of "reasonable time", instead the law simply takes that to mean "the amount of time a reasonable person would require". It would thus depend particularly on the size of the obstruction and the volume of traffic. One measure would be how quickly the rocks were moved -- if it was a matter of days and there was no notice, written or otherwise, then there would not be the kind of urgency that might justify the "We knocked and nobody was home" version of notification.