Opinion
No. 2049 C.D. 2010 No. 2050 C.D. 2010
01-05-2012
Pittsburgh Parking Authority v. Thomas D. Crock, Appellant Pittsburgh Parking Authority v. Thomas Crock, Appellant
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Thomas D. Crock (Crock) petitions for review pro se from two orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) affirming the decision of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority (Authority) and finding him guilty of parking in a loading zone for longer than 15 minutes on two separate dates, and assessing him fines, collection fees and late fees for each of the tickets. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's decision.
We consolidated the two appeals by order dated December 28, 2010.
On March 30, 2010, and April 7, 2010, two parking tickets were issued to Crock by the Authority for parking his car in a "loading zone" for longer than 15 minutes. The car was issued the tickets for parking in violation of Pittsburgh Ordinance §541.01C3 regarding overtime in a limited parking zone on Third Avenue in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Each of the tickets was for $45.50 and specified that if they were not paid by a certain date, fees would be attached.
The March 30, 2010 ticket indicated that Crock's car was parked at 500 Third Avenue with a start time of 1:34 p.m. and an end time of 2:04 p.m., i.e., parked for a total of 30 minutes. (2049 C.D. 2010.)
The April 7, 2010 ticket indicated that Crock's car was parked at 500 Third Avenue with a start time of 1:58 p.m. and an end time of 2:32 pm., i.e., parked for a total of 34 minutes. (2050 C.D. 2010.)
At a hearing before the Authority, Crock argued that there was "'meter maid error'/misconduct." The Authority upheld the tickets, and Crock filed summary appeals with the trial court from those decisions. Before that hearing took place, Crock subpoenaed Bobby Lee Jones (Mr. Jones), the Meter Maid, to testify and to bring the hand-held ticketing device which was used to issue him the two tickets, along with complete tapes, records, notes, etc. from the device regarding the tickets and all software required to operate the device. Crock never paid the tickets.
Crock also subpoenaed Christine Stenson (Stenson) of McKnight Property Management in the Grant Building to testify at the hearing and to provide him with any software and hardware required to view a videotape which would show he was only parked on Third Avenue for five minutes. Finally, he subpoenaed Dan Onorato, whom he stated was the custodian of records and the Authority Director, to testify and to bring the hand-held device, accompanying records and software required to operate the device. Neither of those individuals appeared at the hearing.
The trial court consolidated the appeals. Before the trial court, Mr. Jones testified that he issued both tickets to Crock because he verified by his computer that his car was parked on two different dates for longer than 15 minutes in a loading zone. Mr. Jones explained that he did not observe Crock's vehicle stating: "Okay, Your Honor what I do is time a car. I time it on Ross Street. I go down the street. Then I time Third Avenue, that's how I do it. We don't observe a car at all, it is the car is vacant, we time the plate." (August 26, 2010 Hearing Transcript at 17.) Regarding the ticket issued on March 30th, Mr. Jones stated that he did not specifically see Crock's car on Third Avenue because he only looked at the plate and only went by his hand-held computer. However, Mr. Jones stated that he had a procedure he followed everyday: "Procedure is like this: I do City Council, we start on City Council. I do that block, then I walk down on Ross, I time Ross. Then I walk down Third Avenue, then I walk down Second Avenue. I do Court Place, it is a routine that I do every single day." (August 26, 2010 Hearing Transcript at 21.)
Crock testified that he should not have received a ticket on April 7th because his car was in two different places, and he did not stay in the loading zone for 15 minutes. He explained that was why he subpoenaed the videotape so he could prove that he was only parked for a few minutes:
Crock stated that Stenson, his subpoenaed witness with the videotape, was directed to go to Judge Reilly's chambers where he thought the case was to be heard. However, he could not get in touch with her to let her know that Judge Della Vecchia was hearing the case instead.
What I can testify to is that on April 7 at approximately 1:58 - I am relying on his time stamp - my vehicle was parked on Ross Street, on Ross Street and that on or about
2:32 p.m. the vehicle was parked on Fourth Avenue or Third Avenue - excuse me, right beside the Superior Court or Grant Building. And that vehicle is on Third Avenue for no more than four minutes tops....The vehicle was on Third Avenue no more than five minutes, the point in time it took to walk into Kinko's, come back and get in the car. He [Mr. Jones] was still there. I gave him a piece of my mind at this point, he give me a piece of his mind.(August 26, 2010 Hearing Transcript at 29-30.) Regarding the March 30th ticket, Crock could not recall the specific events that took place.
Marlene Regan (Regan), testifying for the Authority, explained the fee structure to the trial court stating that there was an initial late fee of $15 per ticket and then a collection fee after 60 days of $15.13. Currently, the March 30th ticket was $75.63 and the April 7th ticket was $104.38. That ticket included several late fees of $38.50.
The trial court found Crock guilty of violating the Pittsburgh Ordinance and ordered him to pay $75.63 for the March 30th ticket (fine of $41.50, collection and late fee of $24.13) and $66.38 for the April 7th ticket (fine of $41.50, collection fee of $20.88). Crock filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration and/or modify sentence alleging that the Authority did not prove its allegation beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, there was no lawful basis for any of the fees, costs, late fees or collection costs. The trial court held a hearing on his motion for reconsideration and denied it by order dated December 13, 2010. This appeal by Crock followed.
Our scope of review of the trial court's order is limited to determining whether the trial court violated constitutional rights, whether an error of law was committed, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. §754(b).
Crock makes the same argument on appeal as he did before the trial court at the hearing and in his motion for reconsideration - that there is no substantial evidence to support the fines, fees and costs associated with the two tickets he received. However, the Authority offered the tickets into evidence and the testimony of Mr. Jones regarding his usual routine in giving out tickets and patrolling the area. The trial court apparently found him credible. Crock, on the other hand, could not remember the precise details of March 30th. While he was vehement regarding his innocence and the facts surrounding the April 7th ticket and claimed a videotape would have made a difference to prove his innocence, it was his obligation to speak with his witness to ensure that she arrived at the proper courtroom so she could support this claim. Crock could have requested that the trial court allow him to offer the videotape into evidence after the fact, but he did not do so. The trial court also relied on Regan's testimony regarding the fines, fees and costs and found her credible. Moreover, 75 Pa. C.S. §3353(e) of the Vehicle Code provides: "[a]ny person violating any provision of this section [relating to the stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle in prohibited areas] is guilty of a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of no more than $50." Further, the Authority has been granted the power to operate under 75 Pa. C.S. §6109(a)(1) and may impose fees and costs to enforce parking violations such as those codified under 75 Pa. C.S. §3353(e). 75 Pa. C.S. §6109(h) defines "enforce" as follows:
Actually, what Crock argues is that:
Ms. Regan's, apparently an employee of PPA, testimony (apparently she acts in some/an undisclosed/unreported capacity w/PPA). Ms. Regan's testimony goes to the fees, fines, &/or costs assessed - but does [sic] address their propriety. The propriety of those charges is the issue in/at dispute in the instant case. The PPA counsel (Ebken) and apparent representative (Regan) are essentially silent regarding the propriety, legitimacy of the additional ticket related charges. These additional fees, fines, and costs are unsupported/unsustainable and must therefore be Vacated.
75 Pa. C.S. §6109(a)(1) provides:
(a) Enumeration of police powers. - The provisions of this title shall not be deemed to prevent the department on State-designated highways and local authorities on streets or highways within their physical boundaries from the reasonable exercise of their police powers. The following are presumed to be reasonable exercises of police power:
(1) Except as limited by subsection (h), regulating or prohibiting stopping, standing or parking.
The issuance of parking violation notices or citations, the immobilization, towing and impoundment of motor vehicles and the collection of fines, penalties and costs, including independent collection agency fees, for violations or any ordinance or resolution enacted in order to regulate or prohibit the stopping, standing or parking of motor vehicles in a city of the second class and those certain stopping, standing and parking provisions provided in sections 3351, 3353 and 3354. (Emphasis added.)
Consequently, there is substantial evidence to support the fines, fees and costs associated with the tickets Crock received and his argument is without merit.
Crock argues next that Mr. Jones, the "Meter Maid," was unclear regarding the events surrounding the citations that he issued. Notwithstanding that Crock admitted that he was unclear regarding the events surrounding the March 30th ticket (August 26, 2010 Hearing Transcript at 31), our review of the record indicates that Mr. Jones clearly recounted the events that took place on March 30th.
Mr. Jones: Your Honor, when I first saw the vehicle I was on Third Avenue, 500 block of Third Avenue, I timed the car on that block.(August 26, 2010 Hearing Transcript at 18.) Mr. Jones then testified regarding his usual routine - which was to go to Ross and then Third Avenue. When asked if he was sure that he did not see Crock's car on Ross instead of Third, he stated:
The Court: Okay.
Mr. Jones: I come back.
Mr. Jones: The way I do my time, I explained to you when I time one area, I get the area, go up to the next area. I don't look at a car, follow it around, we don't do that. I don't do that. I time Ross Street then I time Third Avenue then I time the City-County Building.
The Court: But you are saying, your testimony is that in that March 30 ticket, 1:34, this Buick automobile with that plate number EPC-8268 was on Third Avenue.
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir.
The Court: A half hour later you are saying it was still there?(August 26, 2010 Hearing Transcript at 19.) Mr. Jones stated that while he did not personally remember Crock's car being on Third Avenue, he only looked at the license plate and not the vehicle and he went by his computer. Although the trial court did not elicit any testimony from Mr. Jones regarding the April 7th ticket, his testimony indicates that he utilized the same procedure and routine for handing out tickets and we can surmise that he followed the same routine on April 7th. Consequently, Crock's argument is without merit.
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir. It was there a half hour in a 15 minute loading zone.
Finally, Crock argues that the trial court improperly permitted the Authority to avoid complying with his subpoena. Specifically, he contends that Mr. Jones testified that his hand-held computer, i.e., the ticket issuing device, was downloaded every day. He requested that the Authority provide the downloaded information from the "ticket issuing device" but that was not provided to him or presented before the trial court. Crock argues that he was entitled to all exculpatory evidence that was in the Authority's possession, especially when he subpoenaed that information. Crock argued that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by allowing the hearing to proceed despite the Authority's failure to produce evidence that he allegedly subpoenaed.
Crock raises numerous issues in his statement of questions involved that he failed to brief. They included: 1) Under what circumstances should the Authority's attorney testify? Is this proper/appropriate? If so, in what situations? If this practice is permitted, is this proof of prejudice in favor of Crock? 2) Is Citation Management, the for-profit company that supplies the business formula/model, management & personnel to the Authority and the Authority systematically imposing improper and unlawful fees, fines and costs to partaking ticket recipients in the City of Pittsburgh? Are they doing so in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution? 3) Did the Authority's witness comply in full with Crock's subpoena request? 4) Whether the trial court judge misunderstood the evidence presented or mischaracterized the Authority's testimony and evidence?
Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a), regarding a brief filed before this Court, "the argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have as the head of each partin distinctive type or in type distinctively displayedthe particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent." Because Crock fails to address in his brief any of the issues he raises in his statement of questions involved, those issues are waived. See also Borough of Ulysses v. Mesler, 986 A.2d 224, 227 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 908 A.2d 351, 353354 (Pa. Super. 2006).
First, Mr. Jones testified that all information that was "downloaded" from the computer went onto the tickets that were issued. (August 26, 2010 Hearing Transcript at 28.) There was no additional information that was being withheld from him. Second, the trial court found that the Authority had complied with Crock's subpoena when Mr. Jones testified and produced the two tickets. The trial court explained this to Crock at the hearing:
Crock: Let me clarify, I only need the recordings, the entry - initial entry and final entry on those two tickets. That's it, that's all I need.
The Court: They are on this tag.
Crock: On what?
The Court: They are on the ticket.
Crock: That's the ticket. I need whatever he relied on to issue the ticket. I need those two entries in the computer.(August 26, 2010 Hearing Transcript at 26-27.) Despite this exchange, Crock continued to express doubt that he was supplied all of what had been downloaded from the hand-held computer. However, Mr. Jones repeated that the only information downloaded from the hand-held computer was that information found on the ticket. Consequently, the Authority complied with Crock's subpoena and this argument is without merit as well.
The Court: It is then made manifest on this ticket. They enter it in, everything entered is printed on the ticket, is that correct?
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
The Court: Okay.
Crock: My misunderstanding, Your Honor.
The Court: Whatever information he enters into the computer, all of it is entered here as regards these two tickets against you. That's -this is all the information he has is what's on the ticket. If I understand your testimony.
Mr. Jones: You are right, Your Honor.
Accordingly, for all of the above-stated reasons, the orders of the trial court are affirmed. Judges Leavitt and Brobson did not participate in the decision in this case. ORDER PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2012, the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dated August 26, 2010, are affirmed.
(Crock's brief at 15.)