📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Disabled Parking Citations Issuance by Private Security Personnel

4 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 18 findings

F1 Page 178
Employees of HSP issued citations for violations of CVC Section 22507.8 on private property.
F2 Page 178
The citations were written on City Police Department parking violation forms.
F3 Page 178
CVC statutory requirements for marking and sign posting of Disabled Parking spaces were not uniformly maintained on private property within the City. 1 79
F4 Page 179
Some citations were issued for violations of CVC Section 22507.8 where the statutory requirements for charging such violations did not exist.
F5 Page 179
Training designated for the employees of HSP did not cover the statutory requirements for the marking and posting of designated disabled or handicapped parking spaces.
F6 Page 179
A person receiving one of these citations would reasonably believe that the citation had been issued by a police officer, for the following reasons: · The bottom of the citation form reads: “South Lake Tahoe Police Department”; · The name of the person issuing the citation is preceded by the word “officer”; and · The inclusion of an ID number after the name of the issuing “officer” is commonly understood to be a badge number.
F7 Page 179
The City provided the Grand Jury with all of the Laws, Ordinances, City Codes, and Contracts that the City believed to constitute the legal foundation for its authorization to HSP to issue citations generally, and Notices of Violations of CVC Section 22507.8 in particular.
F8 Page 179
The Grand Jury requested statistical data regarding the citations issued for CVC Section 22507.8 and the training records of HSP required to be maintained by HSP and provided to the City upon request, as a condition of the terms of the Contract between the City and HSP. The material provided in response to the Grand Jury’s request was incomplete.
F9 Page 179
The City’s position is based upon its interpretation of City Code Section 2-24. Section 2-24, sets forth the powers and duties of the City Manager and states in part:… “he shall have the following powers and duties: A. …To enforce all laws and ordinances of the city….” (Emphasis added) It is the position of the City that the specific language contained in Section 2-24 allows the City Manager to delegate the power and duty to issue handicapped parking citations to private security patrol officers. Presently, High Sierra Patrol issues citations pursuant to this section.
F10 Page 179
CVC Section 22507.8 is a state law, not a law or ordinance of the city.
F11 Page 179
CVC Section 21 states in part: “…no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein.” (Emphasis added)
F12 Page 179
City Code Section 2-24 grants the City Manager the power to “enforce all laws and ordinances of the city.” It does not, however, give the City Manager peace officer status, nor does it empower the City Manager to enforce 1 80 violations of state law, such as violations of the Vehicle Code in general, or Section 22507.8 in particular.
F13 Page 180
Section 40200.5(a) of the CVC expressly authorizes the City to contract with a private entity to process notices of parking violations. The CVC does not expressly authorize any local authority to contract with a private entity to enforce parking or any other violations of the code. In light of CVC Sections 21 and 40200.5(a), the Grand Jury believes that had the California Legislature intended to authorize local authorities to contract with private companies for the enforcement of parking and/or other violations of the Vehicle Code, it would have written statutory language, similar to CVC Section 40200.5(a), expressly authorizing local authorities to do so.
F14 Page 180
It is the position of the City that on June 7, 1994, the City Council authorized private security patrol officers who complete a basic training course through the Police Department to issue parking citations for violations of the California Vehicle Code Section 22507.8. This position is erroneous. The Minutes for the meeting in question reflect the Item (authority for Private Security Patrol Officers to issue Handicap Parking Citations) was “received and filed.” An action to “receive and file,” in common parlance, is neither an approval nor a disapproval. The Minutes do not indicate that any affirmative action was taken by the City Council to authorize private security patrols to issue disabled parking citations.
F15 Page 180
The City entered into an Agreement with HSP in a contract entitled City of South Lake Tahoe Agreement for Services Park Patrol Services. (sic)
F16 Page 180
Pertinent provisions of the Agreement include the following: · Section 1. HSP “shall perform the services described in Exhibit A;” · Section 5. “At any time during the term of this agreement, City may request that HIGH SIERRA PATROL perform Extra Work. … HIGH SIERRA PATROL shall not perform ... Extra Work without written authorization from CITY;”(sic) · Section 17. “This agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between CITY and HIGH SIERRRA PATROL;” (sic) · Section 18. “This agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document…;” · Exhibit A directs HSP to patrol seven (7) designated areas owned or controlled by the City within its jurisdiction. HSP duties include “informing the users … of all City Ordinances [and] Issue citation(s) as the situations warrant it.”(sic) 1 81
F17 Page 181
There is nothing in the May 2000 contract that either authorizes or obligates HSP to issue notices of violation for illegal parking generally, or illegal parking in disabled parking spaces in particular.
F18 Page 181
Notwithstanding the fact that the CVC does not expressly authorize the City to contract with a private entity for the enforcement of Section 22507.8, the contract between the City and HSP is insufficient on its face to authorize HSP to issue citations for violations of the CVC on private property within the City’s jurisdiction. · The Grand Jury believes that the procedures used by the City to authorize HSP enforcement of CVC Section 22507.8 are legally unauthorized for three separate reasons: a. City Code 2-14 does not empower the City Manager to enforce State laws; b. The CVC does not expressly authorize the City to contract with a private entity to enforce 22507.8; and c. The contract between the City and HSP does not authorize HSP to issue notices of violation for section 22507.8 of the CVC.

Recommendations 2