My day in court

A few weeks ago, I got a parking ticket. Allegedly, I blocked a ramp leading to a crosswalk across the street from my office. In the first place, this infuriated me to no end, because I see cars parked illegally on the streets around the office literally every single day, yet the traffic cops are never anywhere to be found. So when I parked in the vicinity of a ramp and actually got ticketed, I was quite pissed. Secondly, I was outraged at the gall the city had to fine me $100 for this "offense". Usually traffic and speeding violations are punishable by a fine that is just enough to make you want to pay it and be done rather than show up in court. If my ticket had been for $20 or even $40, there's a good chance I would have paid it. But for $100, I contested it, especially when I read section 102-243, the law I was accused of breaking:

(a) Every person receiving written notice of a parking violation, issued by a duly authorized law enforcement officer or agent of the city, may waive the right to appear and to be formally tried for the offense charged in the notice, upon payment of the fine set forth in subsection (b) of this section and specified in the notice. Payment shall be by check, draft or money order, and payment shall be made either:

(1) By presenting the notice and payment in person to the cashier, parking violations section of the department of finance, within 15 days after the date on which the notice of a parking violation was issued; or
(2) By placing the notice and payment in the reply envelope to be provided with the notice, and mailing it to the cashier, parking violations section of the department of finance.
If the notice and payment are mailed, the reply envelope must be postmarked within 15 days after the date on which the notice of a parking violation was issued.

(b) The following fines shall be imposed for parking violations when a person voluntarily waives the right to appear and be formally tried for the offense charged:

The code goes on from there to list the various offenses and their related fines. My first problem was with section (a), which simply gives citizens the right to forego their appearance in court. Seems to me that it's impossible to break that law! Even more outrageous was what I saw in sub-paragraph (b)(2)(a)(7): "Fine of $40 for parking in any location...to include the following places: In front of a ramp leading to the crosswalk at an intersection or located at any other point along a curb, constructed for use of handicapped persons."

So my two-pronged legal strategy this afternoon was first, being charged with violating the wrong code, and failing that, getting my fine reduced by sixty bucks. I was probably the most prepared defendant in Richmond traffic court history. I had copies of all relevant portions of the code, my original ticket and all associated filings, and pictures of the ramp in question which proved that it met the standards of 102-243 (b)(2)(a)(7). Right away, I knew the judge was going to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. The first case was a woman charged with parking longer than the allowed two hours, and from what I heard of her defense, she was in the 7-11 at a certain time before she met Shaniqua on the sidewalk and they drove away in her car. The judge dismissed her case and the ball was rolling. He wasn't so lenient on the guy who parked in front of a fire hydrant (and, like a dumbass, admitted to doing so to the judge), but the girl who parked "on the wrong side of Main Street" and the woman who got towed for parking on the wrong side of the street during street cleaning (while she was "out of the country" -- like nobody's ever tried that excuse before) got off in about thirty seconds.

Seeing all this made me confident that, at worst, I'd have to pay the $40. I first told the judge that section 102-243 was incorrectly applied, to which he responded, "The section that's on the ticket isn't always the section you violated." Before I could point out everything absurd with that statement, he continued, "Did you block the ramp?" I replied, "It was close; I thought I pulled up in front of it enough to clear it." His Honor said, "I'm going to dismiss this, don't do it again." Before I knew it, I was done. No need to split hairs further, no need to debate sub-section (2)(a)(7) versus (4)(b), no need to introduce my pictures as Exhibit A. Justice favors the prepared, and I knew that I had done, as a guy waiting his turn in the courtroom said to me as I left, a "Good job!"