Transcription
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov.-------- -- -I'THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITYICRIMINAL COURTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTInstitute for Advanced Studies in JusticeThe American University Law SchoolWashington, D.C.!' 'IlIIIA PrDgram of theAdjudication DivisionOffice of Criminal Justice ProgramsLaw Enforcement Assistance AdministrationU.S. Department of JUStiCBI"\.(;
-----------.---.-.- ------ ----cTHE AMERICAN UNIVERSITYJoseph J. Sisco, PresidentRichard Berendzen, ProvostNicholas N. Klttrie, Dean (Interim), Law SCllool 1((INSTlTUT!: FOR ADVANCED SiUDlI'.& IN JUSTICEH.arold C. Petrowi!z. Acting DirectorJoseph A. Trotter. Jr. Executive Associate DirectorDavid J. Saari, Associate DlrectqrB.J. Tennery. Associate Director (Onieave)Jill Berman Wilf,on. Administrative Officer )CRIMINAL COURTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTJosephA. Trotter. Jr. DirectorCaroline S, Cooper, Deputy Director (1 a/72-8177)R. William linden, Jr., Technicai Assistance SpecialistKathy Bradt, Evaluation SpeCialistSara TraVis, Administrative SecretarySusan Ellis. Student InternDavid Trebach, Student InternPROJECT ADVISORY BOARDNichOlas N. Klttrie, Law SchoolRichardA. Myren, Center for the Administration of JusticeDavid J. Saari, Cente.r for the Administration of JusticeElliot S. Milstein. Law SchoolOTHEn INSTITUTE PROJECTSEMPLOYMENT AND CRIME PROJECTLeon Leiberg, Project DirectorFran Lazerow, Research DirectorCOURT MANAGEMENT PROJEGTGaroline S. Cooper, Project DirectorNATIONAL ADVISORY COM MITTEE TASK FORCE ON DISORDERS AND TERRORISMWAR ON CI1lME IN THE DlSTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1955·1975ASSESSMENT OFTHE CRITICAL ISSUES IN ADULT PROBATION SERVICESTHE IMPACT OF OECRIMINALIZATION ON THE INTAKEPROCESS FOR PUBLIC INEBRIATESJ/'
I II .-TIA #391\.V'ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATINGTHE PARKING VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMOF THESCOTTSDALE ARIZONA,MUNICIPAL COURTJune 1978Consultants:Hon. :Ri chard F. LeFevGurDr. Peter HaynesWilliam O'LearyCRIMINAL COURTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTThe American University Law Institute4900 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20016(202) 686-3803LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT NUMBER: J-LEAA-013-76.
This report was pl'epared in conjunction withThe Arne 'can University Law School CrimtnalCourts Technical Assistance Project, under acontract with the La \V Enforcement AssistanceAdministration of the U. S. Department ofJustice,. Organizations undertaking such projects underFederal Government sponsot'ship are encouragedto express their own judgment freely. Therefore,points of view or opinions stated in this reportdo not necessarily represent the official positionof the Department of Justice, The AmericanUni.versity is solely responsible for the factualaccuracy of all material presented in thispublication.The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration reservesthe right to reproduce, publish. trnnslate, or otherwise use,.and to authorize others to publish and use all or any pnrt ofthe copyrighted material contained in this publicntion.Copyright @ 1 78 by The American Universily, 'Washington, D. C. 20016
TABLE OF CONTENTS1.Introduction . . . . . . . . .1II.Analysis of Existing Situation.3A.Methodology and Findings31. Analysis of Records2. Interviews . . . . .3 III.Conclusions and RecommendationsA. Parking Enforcement . . . . .B. Automated Citation InformationC. Enforcement Strategy .D. Notice of Citations .E. Rental Car ViolationsF. Moving ViolationsIV.APPENDICES . . .A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.I.J.".799101112131415Appendix A - City of Scottsdale Parking Violation SummonsAppendix B - City of Scottsdale Misdemeanor WarrantAppendi C - City of Srottsdale Parking OrdinancesAppendix D - Ari zona Rl""i sed Statutes, Arti cl e 14, Sec. 28-871thru 28-874Appendix E - City of Phoenix Notice of Parking ViolationAppendix F - City of Phoenix Computer Generated ComplaintAppendix G . City of Phoenix Computer Generated SummonsAppendix H - City of Phoenix Reminder LetterAppendix I - City of Phoenix Parking OrdinancesCity of Chicago vs:Hertz Commerical Leasing Corporation, IllinoisSupreme Court, Docket No. 48699, January 1978.
I.INTRODUCTIONIn the fall of 1977, the Honorable Dan Roth, judge of the Scottsdale,Arizona Municipal Court requested technical assistance from LEAA'sCriminal Courts Technical Assistance Project at the American Universityto study policies and procedures relating to the enforcement of parkingviolations by the court.This request was an outgrowth of a court wideassessment of operations and procedures which Judge Roth had institutedsoon after attaining the bench in early 1977. The Scottsdale MunicipalCourt had, infact, received technical assistance in late 1977 to studypotential computer applications and statistical reporting needs.Among the recommendations contained in the report of the firsttechnical assistance study, was the suggestion that the Municipal Courtassess existing parking violation enforcement practices.During thecourse of an in-house study of this issue, Judge Roth concluded thatsome of the existing procedures were of doubtful legality and as aresult, he was compelled to order the discontinuance of the issuanceof summonses and warrants for"persons who had ignored parking tickets.Another preliminary finding of the study was that a very high percentageof parking citations issued (approximately 70%) were not being paid.It was with these two main problem areas in mind, then, that Judge Rothsubmitted this request.Secondary factors included a belief that Scotts-dale's large transitory winter population could be a significant factor of,.·the perceived non-compliance trend, and a feeling that court recordkeeping practices were inadequate to identify delinquent violators.·A three member, multi-dimensional consulting team was drawn togetherto provide the necessary assistance to the Municipal Court. The team leaderwas the Honorable Richard F. LeFevour, Supervisory Judge of th& TrafficDepartment of the Cook County (Chicago) Circuit Court.Judge LeFevour has
administrative and judicial experience in traffic court matters and underhis direction, the Cook County Circuit Court has gained national attentionfor its highly successful parking violation enforcement system.Dr. PeterHaynes of the Center for Criminal Justice at the Arizona State University.also served on the team, and was chosen for his broad experience in courtsystem analysis and research, as well as for his familiarity with theArizona court system.The third member of the consulting team was Mr.William O'Leary, Court Administrator of the Phoenix, Arizona MunicipalCourt.Mr. O'Leary was invited to participate in this study in light ofthe fact that the Phoenix Municipal Court had, or is, grappling withmany of theis uesconfronting tne Scottsdale Court, and also becausehe could bring to the team insights from an administrator's point of view.The consultants conducted an on-site visitation to Scottsdale atthe end of February, 1978. uringthis time they worked closely withJudge Roth and the Municipal Court staff, reviewed records and procedures,and interviewed a number of key court and city employees, as well as membersof the public.The following report contains the consultant's analysis, findings andrecommendations.
II.A.ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SITUATIONMethodology and Findings1. Analysis of RecordsThe team detennined that to make a valid analysis ofth parking ticket program it would be necessary to check the records of thecourt, and some related agencies. This was somewhat handicapped by theabsence,of many court records.However, with the cooperation of Judge Rothand his staff, it was possible to put together a tentative profile thatled to some startling conclusions.In point, the court was found to havean extremely high collection rate based on voluntary compliance by thecitizens of Scottsdale.It was discovered that in January 1978, which was a month dur"ingwhich there was no attempt to issue summonses for failure to pay, the totalnumber of tickets issued amounted to nine hundred and eight-eight (988).A review of police department records indicated that of these approximatelyfifteen (15) were voided This left nine hundred and seventy three (973)actual tickets, which might be acted Uptn.The Municipal Court had set aside all those tickets issuedin January that had not been paid.Here it was found that these amountedto one hundred and forty six (146) outstanding tickets at the time of thesite visit (February 22-24th).It can be readily seen that only 15% of thetickets which might possibly be paid we;re still outstanding, whereas, 85%were disposed of either through payment of fine or through dismissal ortrial.No citations had been dismissed on any other grounds at this time.*This is an estimate based on 8 voided tickets for two weeks ofthe period.3
Since this finding as in conflict with original expectations,the team attempted to confirm the finding by appraising performance inanother time period.Accordingly, an assessment of the experience inFebruary 1978, covering February 1st to February 22nd, yielded similarresults.One thousand and thi1'ty-five (1035) tickets were filed in thecourt and seven hundred and ninety (792) had been paid at the time ofthe appraisal.Forfeitures amounted to 76.5% of the total ticketsissued (prior to any correction for voided tickets).Figures were obtained from Scottsdale police departmentwhich showed the number of tickets sent to the court during each monthof 1977, but unfortunately information of unpaid tickets was not readilyavailable from the court files.This 10es mean that the conclusionshere necessaily are based solely on the two months directly observed,and not on a more appl"opriate and longer time period.Undoubtedly thisdoes result in some uncertainty in the actual figures for the wholeyear, but it is believed that the main thrust of the conclusion issound, namely that the city of Scottsdale has a very large favorablecompliance rate (See Chart 1.)In view of these findings, court staff was questioned aboutthe source of the original figures for noncompliance which had precip'itatedthis examination.It was discovered that the original figures werebased, not on the tickets at large, but solely upon a sample of unpaid.tickets .The original staff work discovered that, when an attempt wasmade to issue summons to collect on 103 unpaid tickets that only twentythree (22.3%) tickets were paid at either the original or the accuredamount, whereas eighty (77.7%) remained unpaid.It is clear that thisresponse rate is a very different matter from the response rate on the4
total number of tickets.Although the vast majority of tickets are being paid it isalso true that a reasonable number are ignored completely.th 'i,Accordingly,team explored the nature of these ti ckets wi th ,a vi ew to determi ni ngwhether further enforcement was feasible.As it had been suggested thatunpaid tickets might be traced to out-of-state visitors the list ofunpaid tickets in January 1977 was reviewed to identify out-of-statelicense plates.Surprisingly, of the one hundred and forty-six examined(146) only thirty-eight (38) were attributed to cars registered out-of-state(Le., 28%).It is true that the remaining one hundred and eight (108)tick ts(i.e., 72%) undoubtedly included a number of cars which were driven byout-of-state drivers, but whiGh were owned by local individuals or corporations.It was speculated that a good number of these might be ownedby rental car agencies and indeed, in some instance they are so identifiedon the ticket.Unfortunately, the present system does not allowth court to routinely determine the identity of the owners of the vehicles.This can only be done by chec'king with the Department of Motor Vehiclesin individual instances.In the past, the court has collected information on the registered'crimes of motor vehicles with parking tickets by contacting the Department of Motor Vehicles.Unfortunately, the court has experienced up tothree weeks delay between the request and response. This has madeeffective action extremely difficult.It is clear that the court doesnot have the information needed for management of this process at thepresent time.5
Char tIJanuary (1978) Parking TicketsScottsdale Municipal Court.rNot p aid )'n 146(15% )January ----Total tickets*1978issued98838- /Paid'827(85%) voided(estimate)IS*same*P.D.- tickets issued**Court - parking tickets60ut -0f - s tat e 28%in-stat 108(7 2 %)(1 0 8 % 0f( 4,2 %1tot a i),.0ftot a 1)
2.InterviewsA series of interviews were conducted with the Judge, courtstaff, the prosecution, the local police department and with the dataprocessing staff of the City of Scottsdale.One team member evenactually questioned members of the public about how they viewedparking ticket enforcement.As a result of their interviews it was determined thatalthough the lack of an effective enforcement system presented problemsto court personnel it did not cause any morale problems for the policedepartment. They emphasized that the majoritY,of the tickets are issuedby a meter maid and that they were more concerned about other issues.They were of the opinion that matters were viewed differently in themoving violation area and suggested that his subject should be assessedin depth.The questioning of members of the public indicated that thegeneral public is not aware of the present situation of suspendedenforcement and believes that the system will respond rapidly if theyfail to pay!Evidently the court has been fortunate in avoiding wide-spread dissemination of the true state of affairs.After polling individuals attitudes, the team turned its attentionto the mechanics of improving enforcement. Accordingly, they interviewedthe people who ran the computer for the City of Scottsdale, in an effortto see if it was possible for the court to develop a tracking system,using the city computer, that would enhance their enforcement procedures.Discussions were held with the city police department and citygovernment staff regarding parking ticket tracking systems and it waslearned that an audit oriented computerized system had just been introduced. This system is presently used to control for tickets issued7
by the police department. The system did not involve the collection ofrecording of registration information, but it was clear that such information could relatively easily be introduced into the system.Policecould collect the information rapidly from the Department of MotorVehicles and the city has the capacity of readily introducing thatinformation into their computer system, should they so decide.Modifying the system to accomplish this was described as arelatively minor task involving only the time of a programmer forapproximately one month. The potential for installing managerialcontrol systems is presently existent.If it were installed it wouldbe possible to identify the registered owners of all cars with unpaidtickets. The information for use in enforcement against scofflaws and/orother groups (e.g., rental car agencies) could easily be developed.8
III. CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATIONSA.PARKING ENFORCEMENTIt is desirable to establish an effective enforcementsystem for the parking tickets that remain unpaid, eventhough present collection rates are extremly high.The team's analysis has determined that the present collectionrate is extremely high by national standards.In fact, the 70-80%collection rate is approximately twice the national average.Thisis surprising in view of the lack of any effective enforcement process.The success is probably attributed to the fact that the parking ticketsare relatively inexpensive ( 2-5) and also to the lack of public awarenessof the enforcement situation.In spite of this success, there is a need for a more effectivesystem.Collection rates could fall if the public becomes aware ofpresent practice, or if the cost of the tickets increase.In addition,although one cannot expect 100% compliance, there is reason to believethat actual collection rates could be increased by impacting on twospecific groups. These are rental agencies and scofflaws, those withmany outstanding citations.The amount of money collected by improved enforcement in theseareas would not be large but it almost certainly would be sufficientto cover any extra costs of enforcement, while aiding in the establishment of an effective tracking system for the court.the present collection rate should be maintained.9At the very least
B.AUTOMATED CITATION INFORMATIONThe information required to allow effective enforcementcan readily be obtained by minor modifications of thepresent Scottsdale City Computer System for citationcontrol.The present system for control of parking citations involvescomputer tabulation of tickets issued, tickets submitted to the courtand amounts paid. The input work is performed by the City ComputerStaff using the records supplied directly by the police department andthe municipal court (moving violations are handled slightly differently).It would be possible to collect information on the owners ofall cited cars but that seems to be an unnecessarily complex process.The better system would be to ensure that extra information on thosetickets that are unpaid be introduced.Restricting the input ofdetailed registration information only to those tickets that are unpaidwould impose only a slight increased workload burden.Detailed infor-mation on approximately 150 citations a month is not excessive.Interviewswith Scottsdale Police Department staff indicated that it would bepossible for them to collect that information from the Department of MotorVehicles within 24 hours of the receipt of the request.As indicatedalready, the existing city computer system has adequate room for theextra characters.All that remains is for city staff to allocate the small amountof programmer time needed to add the appropriate sub-routines to printout the appropriate lists of outstanding tickets.It is not necessary,therefore, to tie into the City of Phoenix computer system to obtain thisinformation.10
C.ENFORCEMENT STRATEGYThe Court, together with the police department, shoulddecide on an appropriate enforcement strategy oncethe information is available.Once a system ;s established it will be necessary forthe court to change its internal proceduY'es so that outstanding citationsare not dismissed as rapidly as at present.Holding citations open for18 months would not be an excessive time period.It would result in nomore than three thousand (3,000) citations in the delinquent list, at any time.By requiring the computer to print out lists of delinquent ticketsby vehicle it will be possible to identify individuals with many violations.As it is known that individuals with this type of behavior pattern arealso likely to have bad driving records, it is not inappropriate toinitiate merely vigorous enforcement proceedings.Of course it is certainly feasible to send a second notice byregular mail to those with even one outstanding citation.Some individualsnever receive the original ticket, or lose it, or just forget.Thisprocess results in the collection of approximately 40% of outstandingcitations in Phoenix and it should recover some of the missing citationsin Scottsdale, although the rate will probably not be close to the4Q% figure,If the citations still remain unpaid the court will need todecide on a cut off figure (e.g., 5 pending citations) at which timestrong enforcement will be initiated.If strong enforcement is decided upon warrants can be issuedby the court and the vehicl1e could be put on an impound list by the11
police department at the same time.D.NOTICE OF CITATIONSIt is imperative that legal citations are issuedand that proper notice be given if enforcement isto be effective.At present, the citations do not include legal authority forthe charge which obviously must be redressed before any other stepsare taken.It is suggested that Scottsdale consider use of a systemmodeled upon Phoenix practice.Examples of forms used by that juris-diction are enclosed in the appendices to this report.Creation of an effective system would involve redesign of theparking violation summons Form #YC2-0334 (9-77) shown at Appendix A.This form is called a summons but is not a legal summons under Arizonalaw as it fails to give a date and time for appearance. The placingof this document on a vehicle does not constitute legal service fora summons.This document could more properly be referred to as a NOTICEOF VIOLATION, and could serve"well as a notice of violation if it included the State Code or City Ordinance which is alleged to have beenviolated.Immediate attention should be given to this, and it would requireonly that the citing officer write the code on the current form as atemporary measure.This temporary coding by the officer would be enough to enablethe City Prosecutor to use it as a source document when drawing upa formal complaint should prosecution be necessary.Giving notice by registered mail to all owners of cars withunpaid citations has proven tG be an ineffective and costly process.Itwas suggested that this process be restricted only to those individuals who12
are identified as scofflaws. This would meet the legal requirements fornotice and could then be followed by issuance of a warrant in the smallnumber of instances where real abuses are taking place.Long range plans should begin to determine a direction for. future processing.The redesign of forms could very well be dictated bythe plans to expand Scottsdale's own data processing or, as has beensuggested in a prior study, to IItie into" the City of Phoenix system.IfScottsdale's own data processing is to be used then they are free todesign as they will, but any "tie in" may restrict them to a design whichwill have common data fields with the documents for which the system wasdesigned.E.RENTAL CAR VIOLATIONSEnforcement of violations by rental cars can beeffectively accomplished using the computer systemand following the procedures used by the PhoenixMunicipal Court.The computer listing will indentify those cars registered torental agencies. Those agencies can be relatively easily persuaded to paythe citations as long as the amount is restricted to the original ticketand excludes penalty provisions.The Phoenix Municipal Court has successfully collected parkingfines imposed upon rental cars, in this way, for a period of time, andit is suggested that Scottsdale emulate their practice.The legality of this process is not presently in question inArizona.However, a recent Illinois Supreme Court Decision (See Appendix J)has established that enforcement against the lessor agency is appropriatein Illinois.It is anticipated that a similar decision would be forthcomingin Arizona if these procedures were challenged.13
F.MOVING VIOLATIONSThe court should give it's primary emphasis to themoving violations area rather than to parking issues.The court is fortunate in having a high parking citation",compliance rate in spite of an ineffective enforcement policy. Thisenforcement process can easily be improved if these suggestions arefollowed.However, there are areas of even higher priority the teambelieves that the type of managerial controls missing in the parkingarea are similarly lacking in the moving violation area.These aremore serious matters and this process should be given emphasis inany further efforts to improve the courts procedures.Judge Roth has continually communicated his desire thathis court run in the most effective and best manner possible.Attentionto the moving violation area should assist in making the ScottsdaleCity Court outstanding in the State.14
APPENDICESA.City of Scottsdale Parking Violation SummonsB.City of Scottsdale Misdemeanor WarrantC.City of Scottsdale Parking OrdinancesD.Arizona Revised Statutes - ParkingE.City of Phoenix Notice of Parking ViolationF.City of Phoenix Computer Generated ComplaintG.City of Phoenix Computer Generated SummonsH.City of Phoenix Reminder LetterI.City of Phoenix Parking OrdiancesJ.Care Citation Chicago15
. APPENDIX A," ." "":';' 'I!",wi'. .'," ;,!' ,'.'I' '. 'J."PARKING WRONG WAY :', , ,. :'"ItPARKINGINDRIVEWAV' ItII.'0 'f',1 ":,I,;U\ 0' '.,'t' .".1:: :!OJ :",,: 0 :'"PARKING IN ALLEV:PARKING IN CROSSWALK , , . r',;' I, 'BLOCKING TRAFFIC1,,'-,(I ":,:'o ,. ' I.,J", .IL . . . . . . . . . t I ' . I . . h .': j.', "'J, NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER.FOAM NO, NO PARKING ZONE"'." "." ,:0 "00 .0'".' INOTICE'" :,.! '1,,'I'' . t . ( " . 1. ,,1. . , ."',,;:1, .,PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON BACK.' I. . . \I \"",,. ,,t .; . ' .I'\,;L- -- ---------------------- Q!) I.l "".,!
. APPENDIX B----- - -- - - - " - - - --'-- -- -- - ' - - - --- --.-- -'- -IN THE CITY COURT OF THECITY OF SCOTTSDALEMARICOPA COUNTYSTATE OF ARIZONA1"-.,YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDEDFORTHWITH. TO ARREST THE SAID AC·CUSED AND BRING HIM BEFORE ME, FORTH·WITH, TO BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.GIVEN UNDER MY HAND,.IDOCKET NO.BIRTH YR ISEXl ORIGINORIGINAL VIOLATION DATEORIGINAL VIOLATION CODEX0SERVEDBAIL AMOUNTCITY MAGISTRATE0UllOCWARRANT DATE MISDEMEANOR WARRANT-.THE STATE OF AItIZONA TO ANY 'EACE OFFICER WITHIN THE STATE,A COMPLAINT UPON OATH HAS THIS DAY BEEN MADE BEFORE ME THAT AMISDEAMEANOR HAS BEEN COMMITIED. TO WIT, SECTION 28·1056. A. R SVIOLATING A WRITIEN PROMISE TO APPEAR. AND ACCUSING THE ABOVENAMED.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I SERVED THIS WARRANT UPONTHE ACCUSED AND HAVE HIS BODY IN CUSTODYDATEOFFICER SIGNATUREYC2·02J8 (6·78)---
.,APPENDIX C'l'lIROUGH STREETSIndian Bend Road - Scottsdale RQad to Pima RoadShea Blvd. - 64th Street to 104th StreetSource:11-806.Ord. 309, Art. 16, Sec. 5; 13-100, C'63.Load restrictionsu onvehicles using certain streetsIn accordance with section 11-751 and when signs areerected giving notice thereof, no person shall operate anyvehicle with a gross weight in excess of the amounts specified herein at any time upon any of the following streets orparts of streets.Source:11-807.Commercial vehicles prohibited from using certainstreetsSource:.--CHAPTER , 9.11-901.Ord. 309, Art. 16, Sec. 6; 13-101, C'63.Ord. 309, Art. 16, Sec. 7; 13-102, e'63.STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKINGARTICLE 1. IN GENERALParking not to structtrafficNo person shall park any vehicle upon a stre t, otherthan an alley in such a manner or under such conbitions as toleave available less than ten feet of the width of the roadway for free movement of vehicular traffic.Source:11-902.Ora 309, Art. 13, Sec. 1; 13-80, C'63.State law, see Sec. 28-871, A.R.S.ForParking in alleys; exceptionsA. No person shall park a vehicle within an alley insuch a manner or under such conditions as to leave availabteless than ten feet of width of the roadway for the free movement of vehicular traffic, and no person shall stop, stand orpark a vehicle wi thin an alley in such a position as to: , blockthe driveway entrance to any abutting property B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A ofthis section vehicles desplaying state "Disabled Parking"identifying insignia may stand or park in an allay for a period not to exceed five minutes while loading or unloading- 293 -
persons.Source:11-903.Ord. 309, Art. 13, Sec. 2; am. by Ord. 495,Sec. Ii 13-81, e'63.Parking time limited on certain streets; exceptionsA. When signs are erected in each block giving noticethereof no person shall park a vehicle for longer than specified thereon, except physicians on emergency calls, and exceptfor a vehicle displaying a state IIDisabled Park,ing" identifying insignia.B. A vehicle displaying a state "Disabled Parking"identifying insignis may park for a period of time equal todouble the period of time specified for the block in whichsuch vehicle is parked.Source:'.11-904.Ord. 309, Art. 13, Sec. 3; am. By Ord. 495,Sec. 2; 13-82, C'63.Parking for certain purposes prohibitedNo person shall park a vehicle upon any roadway or rightof-way for the principal purpose of:1.Displaying such vehicle for sale.2. Washing r greasing or repairing such vehicle exceptrepairs necessary by an emergency.3.Advertising or displaying commercial exhibits.4.Storing said vehicle or salvaging parts of the vehi-cleoB. Any vehicle found in violation of this chapter shallbe issued a parking citation after seventy-two hours from thefirst sighting of the vehicle. After an additional seventytwo hour period a second citation shall be issued and at thattime a letter from the chief of police shall be initiated tothe registered owner of the vehicle, advising him of the provisions of this chapter, and asking him to remove the vehiclewi thin seventy-two hours of the last citation.C. Any vehicle found in violation of this chapter for aperiod of nine consecutive days ,may be impounded upon order ofthe chief of police or his duly authorized representative andthe owner of record of such vehicle shall be liable for alltowing or storage charges arising therefrom.Source:Ord. 309, Art. 13, Sec. 4; 13-83, C'63.- 294 -
,"".,.,,': 11-905.Parking prohibited on narrow streetsA. The city traffic supervisor may erect signs indicating no parking upo any street when the width of the roadwaydoes not exceed twenty feet, or upon one side of a street asindicated by such signs when the width of the roadway does notexceed thirty feet.B. When official signs prohibiting parking are erectedupon narrow streets as authorized herein, no person shallpark a vehicle upon any street in violation of any such sign.Source:11-906.Ord. 309, Art. 13, Sec. 6; 13-85, C'63.Over-sizedstreetsvehic eparking prohibited on residentialNo person shall park or store a commercially registert::dvehicle with a chassis rated for more than one ton nor any vehicle greater than twenty-two feet in length on streets oralleys in a residential area or zone except when expeditiouslyloading, unloading, delivering or making a service call at aresidence.Source:11-907.Ord.
D. Appendix D - Ari zona Rl""i sed Statutes, Arti cl e 14, Sec. 28-871 thru 28-874 E. Appendix E - City of Phoenix Notice of Parking Violation F. Appendix F - City of Phoenix Computer Generated Complaint G. Appendix G . Cit
