Sno Park Permits in WA - Who's got one?

[Plinko]

I parked near a "Winter Recreation Site" yesterday and got a $75 ticket, even though it's not even winter and I wasn't recreating anywhere near their site. Any ideas that might help me out of this rediculously excesive parking ticket?

[DirtyHarry]

Here's the relevant Washington law on the issue:

 

" WAC 352-32-260

 

Sno-park permit.

Only those vehicles properly displaying a valid winter recreational area parking permit issued by the state of Washington or by another state or nation which honors a Washington state winter recreational area parking permit shall park in designated winter recreational parking areas: Provided, That Washington licensed vehicles shall be required to display a Washington state winter recreational area parking permit. Those vehicles in violation of this rule shall be subject to the application of RCW 46.61.587. Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. "

 

I would request a contested hearing. At the hearing argue that the WAC 352-32-260 applies only to winter time, as stated explicitly in the code. Alternatively, argue that even if the code applies to non-winter time it is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts in your case because it failed to put you, an ordinary citizen, on notice that the sno-park permit requirement applies in a non-winter season.

[billcoe]

I parked near a "Winter Recreation Site" yesterday and got a $75 ticket, even though it's not even winter and I wasn't recreating anywhere near their site. Any ideas that might help me out of this rediculously excesive parking ticket?

 

 

Start voting libertarian.

 

It won't help with this one, but the next 10.

 

You're welcome.

[syklone]

Here's the relevant Washington law on the issue:

 

" WAC 352-32-260

 

Sno-park permit.

Only those vehicles properly displaying a valid winter recreational area parking permit issued by the state of Washington or by another state or nation which honors a Washington state winter recreational area parking permit shall park in designated winter recreational parking areas: Provided, That Washington licensed vehicles shall be required to display a Washington state winter recreational area parking permit. Those vehicles in violation of this rule shall be subject to the application of RCW 46.61.587. Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. "

 

I would request a contested hearing. At the hearing argue that the WAC 352-32-260 applies only to winter time, as stated explicitly in the code. Alternatively, argue that even if the code applies to non-winter time it is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts in your case because it failed to put you, an ordinary citizen, on notice that the sno-park permit requirement applies in a non-winter season.

 

The code doesn't say anything it only being applicable in wintertime. Read it again. It only says that to park in the desiganated area you need the permit. According to the wording that you quoted, they can ticket you for not having the pass in July if they want, as long as it is designated a winter recreation area.

[DirtyHarry]

That's one interpretation. Common sense, however, dictates that one would not call a winter recreation area a winter recreation area in the summer. For example, if you had an outdoor ice rink that doubled as a basketball court in the summer, you wouldn't call it an ice rink in the summer, you'd call it a basketball court.

Correspondingly, its not like people only use these areas designated as winter recreation areas in the winter. People use them in the summer too.

 

The point being, statutes and codes need to be sufficiently clear in order to let people know that they exist. This one here, appears somewhat ambiguous. Hence, a constitutionally vague argument would be appropriate.

 

Might not work, but worth a shot.

[mattp]

That's not a bad argument, Harry, but I think "common sense" can probably be cited to argue that someone who parks on the side of the road with six feet of snow plowed away so that they can park there realizes that this is considered "winter." To anybody but us nerdly climbers looking to measure our accomplishments against the next guy, the passage of five days since the equinox does not make it "summer" or even "spring" above, maybe, 2000 feet. This argument is probably more common sensical than the idea that winter didn't start until December 21, and ended March 20.

[kix]

however, the judge is sitting there with some fresh tulips on her desk and may be perfectly open to the argument that spring is spring and winter rules are null and void.

[DirtyHarry]

Your reasoning just buttresses my argument. If we don't have exact calendar dates to tell us when exactly seasons change, then we'll have arbitrary enforcement of these laws, which is clear evidence of an unconstitutionally vague statute or code.

 

I mean, who gets to determine if it is winter or not?

If we get a freak snowstorm in July, does that make it winter again and people can be ticketed for parking in a sno-park without proper sticker? Afterall, its cold and snowy, it must be winter.

[catbirdseat]

How about signage? Do they remove a sign when plowing is no longer necessary?

[ivan]

That's not a bad argument, Harry, but I think "common sense" can probably be cited to argue that someone who parks on the side of the road with six feet of snow plowed away so that they can park there realizes that this is considered "winter." To anybody but us nerdly climbers looking to measure our accomplishments against the next guy, the passage of five days since the equinox does not make it "summer" or even "spring" above, maybe, 2000 feet. This argument is probably more common sensical than the idea that winter didn't start until December 21, and ended March 20.

so can i count my spring climbs as winter climbs when i return to the car to find myself fined for not having a winter parking pass?

[mattp]

Depending on the conditions, I'd say you might, Ivan, unless you are measuring your climb against somebody else's standard and they adhere to the December 21-March 20 regime. If the trail is dry, the snopack firmed up, sun shining, and rock dry you are probably not making what any body would call a winter climb -- even if the calendar says January. On the other hand, if you go up to Mt. Stuart this week and climb the thing in a cold weather blizzard, most of us would think we'd had a "winter" experience even though the calendar might say April 2. You'd get corrected, however, and told that it was not winter but "winter conditions" or something like that.

[mattp]

Your reasoning just buttresses my argument.

Your argument just buttresses my reasoning. It is simpy untenable to argue that one couldn't have the common sense to observe the 6 foot snow bank as well as the ongoing snow showers and fail to realize it was still winter. You might have a point if we were talking about a summer squall with flowers in bloom along side of the road but, during a snowstorm on March 24 with the snowpack probably at about its height for the season, it is clearly winter.

 

There is no basis in Washington law for stating that "winter" only runs from December 21 to March 20 -- in fact the legal period for studded tires probably comes as close as any such standard and that period runs from November 1st to April 1st. Clearly, this ticket was written in the Winter and a legalistic argument about the spring equinox just cannot fly.

[slaphappy]

FWIW on my current Snowmobile Sno-Park Permit it says VALID: Nov.2005 to Apr.2006 or as posted ...and yes, in purple .

[mattp]

Aha. I wonder if the small print on the "Winter Recreation Site" sign might give similar dates?

[DirtyHarry]

FWIW on my current Snowmobile Sno-Park Permit it says VALID: Nov.2005 to Apr.2006 or as posted ...and yes, in purple .

 

that just means you don't have to buy another one until April. Just like my hunting license is only valid through May of this year.

 

Matt - the term "winter" is NOT defined in the statute, so therefore an ordinary, dictionary definition of the term should be applied. Such a definition is "The usually coldest season of the year, occurring between autumn and spring, extending in the Northern Hemisphere from the winter solstice to the vernal equinox, and popularly considered to be constituted by December, January, and February."

 

The vernal equinox, this year, was March 20th.

[dalius]

I say contest the thing. Tell them you were out fishing or doing some other summer-like activity.

[mattp]

Good luck with that argument, counsel.

[dalius]

I admit I have zero legal background, but dirtyharry's argument sounds like a decent one to me. If you were to use that and then say you were out snowmobiling or skiing, you probably won't get to far.

[DirtyHarry]

Well, might not work, but worht a try. At the very least the Judge would definitly reduce the fine, since you took the time to show up and make a such a compelling argument.

[mattp]

That is likely true, Harry. However, I once drove all the way to Monroe to contest a speeding ticket in StartUp to have the generous judge mark a $116.00 ticket down to $108.00!

 

On the bigger argument, I just don't think you're likely to find a District Court judge who wants to strike the Snow Park law as Unconstitutional and what I've heard in a few inquiries with lawyers who do traffic tickets is that the semantic arbuments and I didn't know kind of excuses are getting less and less successful -- as a rule. Last time I went to court and watched a few of these, everybody who tried some argument like yours or who said the officer was mistaken did not have any success.

[DirtyHarry]

That is definitly true, and you are probably right.

But on the other hand, its not that big a deal for a trial court to declare a law unconstitution AS APPLIED. Its not like they will be "making waives" by doing so. And the argument I've presented here is a lot less semantical than some arguments I've seen lawyers make. You can always appeal to Superior court too and will have a better chance there - might as well make the state work to collect your money!

 

Traffic cases are tricky for sure, espescially since any infraction-based decision that has made it to a appeals court has been unrecorded for about ten years. Lawyers / claimants are stuck arguing by using old case law.

[archenemy]

This is better than Judge Judy.

[DirtyHarry]

I was thinking more like Jerry Springer.

[slaphappy]

FWIW on my current Snowmobile Sno-Park Permit it says VALID: Nov.2005 to Apr.2006 or as posted ...and yes, in purple .

 

that just means you don't have to buy another one until April. Just like my hunting license is only valid through May of this year.

 

Not quite. The snow park permit comes w/ my sled registration which is due in Nov. The way I understand it is that they have the option to continue the enforcement of the permit beyond April on a freak snow year.

 

But hey, I'm no attorney...

[foraker]

I'm not sure the hunting license comparison is all that bad.

Hunting licenses are usually for precise periods of time. Maybe not here, I don't know, but usually your license to hunt or fish something is spelled out from day X of Y month until day W of Z month. Anything that requires a permit typically spells out the time limits of that permit. Thus if the rule was always in force, you would expect wording such as 'permits are always required to park in winter recreation areas'. If not, you would expect 'permits required from September until March'. I think anyone exercising common sense (and supposing they read all the fine print on all the signage available) could argue that one would not expect to have a permit when it was not technically winter. A judge would not have to rule the law unconstitutional in order for you to catch a break.