Originally Posted by
UniChris
The reality is that you will rarely find a traffic court administrative judge that interested in hair splitting.
The other reality is that even having to deal with the system is more than half of the punishment, valid ticket or not.
No argument there. Holy cow is dealing with the system at all atleast half of the punishment. Absolute misery. Even if you win it's often hardly worth the fight, & inconvenience of lost time & wages.
Nor again, is there anything stopping a city from writing ordinances banning specific behavior in parks when there is a legitimate government interest to do so.
They can write all the ordinances they want. It's the means of enforcement & culpability that poses the problem.
Nor is not requiring equipment that would determine if a violation is occurring an impediment to making that a violation, you can for example close a park at a certain hour with signage, without requiring that someone wear a watch if they wish to enter. You can ticket for parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, without requiring that every vehicle have a tape measure in the glove box or that drivers be able to recite the dimensions of a sidewalk paving square from memory. Yes, many oft-violated technical regulations do get additional requirements for monitoring equipment to back them up - but that's to enhance compliance, it is not in any way a requirement for such a regulation to be valid.
At least here, so much as I am aware parks close at dusk which is both subjective & plainly observable as some time after sunset. The motor vehicle code as a seperate body of law from park regulation requires headlights with in 30 minutes plus or minus of sunset. Which is also "dusk" and plainly observable independent of a wrist watch.
The legality of parking within "15 feet" of a fire hydrant with out requiring a tape measure is easily solved by the plainly observable red marking on the curb. The city has done it's due diligence in making compliance possible with out infringing upon your rights or getting muddled in the issues relatef to what standard a hypothetical tape measure is accurate to, the certification process & chain of custody of such certified & calibrated measuring instrument or the qualifications of the instrument operator. A "tape measure tax" would never stand from a personal liberties perspective. (In a former life I ran a calibration lab.)
So far as I know the law, at least in my state only states "shall not block" a fire hydrant which just like red paint on the curb, is also plainly observable with out requiring any special equipment.
It's not to
enhance compliance it's to
define compliance.
A cyclist, even if cited for breaking a park rule must have a
defined means of compliance else the rule is arbitrary & capricious.