The Law Is Clear, But Was The Sign? Parking Ticket Leads To A Crusade

It takes a certain kind of person to spend hundreds of dollars to fight a $23 parking ticket.

Meet Elster Haile.

"It's not just the $23," said Haile. "I'm spending $400 to $500 just to make the point." The point being that some of Seattle's no-parking signs leave a lot to be desired.

Money isn't the issue. Haile sent the city a $50 donation to defray the cost of fixing its signs.

Haile, 77, a former city attorney for Half Moon Bay, Calif., now lives and practices law in Palo Alto, Calif.

His story may actually serve to improve public opinion of both Californians and attorneys.

Haile's fight grew out of a ticket he received on a rainy Sunday night while visiting Seattle last January.

Heading to a Wallingford restaurant, Haile and his sons spotted what he thought was a legitimate parking space between two other parked cars on the east side of Meridian Avenue North in the 4400 block.

When they returned after the meal, the car had been towed.

Along with the $66.54 towing fee, there was a $23 ticket for parking in a prohibited area.

Haile cried foul.

He tried to get the ticket dismissed by writing a letter to the city.

He said he had first seen the parking spot while driving south and that the one-sided "no parking" signs faced south. The nearest "no parking" sign was obscured by a pipe and attached nine feet high to a telephone pole. He did not see another, lower sign posted farther away, near the corner at North 45th Street.

In the letter to Seattle Municipal Court, Haile complained the signs didn't adequately warn motorists precisely where parking was prohibited. If the city wouldn't tear up his ticket, he wanted a hearing.

Haile flew up from California to plead his case before Pro Tem Judge Herbert Freise in June.

"Your honor . . . my research tells me that there are 1,398 miles of highway in the city of Seattle. There's 707 miles of paved streets . . .," Haile told the judge.

In most areas of town, he argued, "No Parking Any Time" signs are visible enough, but that wasn't the case where he parked and got towed.

He suggested the situation amounted to a traffic trap.

Haile told the judge that the restaurant manager had confirmed that cars on the street were towed "all the time."

"It is not a very good welcome mat from the city of Seattle," Haile said.

But the judge was not impressed.

"I think," concluded the judge, "when you come to a strange place, you are required to exercise caution, and I think you violated a parking law, and I'm going to find you guilty and the fine will be $23."

Case closed?

Hardly.

Haile had a transcript prepared of the city hearing and paid the $110 fee to file an appeal in King County Superior Court. An October hearing has been set.

Jeanne Innis, head of the appellate unit in the city attorney's office, said the office has received only two appeals of parking tickets in the three years she has been there.

Haile's seven-page "opening brief" asks, "What does a sign `No Parking Anytime' on a post next to a street curb mean?"

"Clearly, it means no parking beside the sign. But does it mean no parking from the corner to the nearest break in the curb? . . . Does it mean no parking within 50 feet? Does it mean no parking on the whole block?"

Otherwise, such a sign is flawed because it is unconstitutionally vague, he contends.

More could be at stake than Haile's $23. If he prevails, he contends it would mean "the city might have to go out and change every one of their no-parking signs."

He exchanged letters with an associate traffic engineer for the city, who admitted the sign on the telephone poll needed relocating.

Asked how many hours he has dedicated to the fight, Haile, who normally charges $200 an hour for his legal services, replied, "Don't ask."

Haile's son, John Haile, 28, of Seattle, supports his father's fight.

"I think many people have found themselves to be in a similar circumstance. . . . Nine out of 10 of us will eat the costs rather than take time off from work, etc., in order to fight . . .

"He really is in the right."