Back in February, shortly after the Chicago Blizzard we experienced, I was greeted with 2 parking tickets on my 1996 Volkswagen Jetta, which I park on the street.  The violation?  "No city sticker or improper display."  And they nailed me for it two days in a row.  Ah, but I did have a sticker.

It just fell off.

Not 1, but 2 tickets on my car

For those not familiar with the Chicago City Sticker, it's a yearly tax on vehicles.  Meaning, it's a required purchase that must be displayed in the lower corner on the passenger's side of the windshield.  Chicago unfortunately has this ridiculous habit of allowing the sticker to be designed by local students each year, which often results in ugly art you are forced to stare at for 365 days.

Stickers are defective

In 2010, however, an interesting subplot developed regarding the city parking stickers.  Each yearly sticker expires June 30, which means new stickers need to be purchased and placed on your windows around that time.  However, last summer many media outlets were reporting that the stickers wouldn't actually stay on the windows.  In fact, they were falling off.

City Clerk's office extends deadline

The cause of the problem was classic Chicago corruption.  The City Clerk's office, which is responsible for the sales of stickers, had recommended that the city continue to order the decals from their preferred vendor, The Standard Register Company.  However, the city's Procurement Department overruled the Clerk's office and instead awarded a 5-year deal to another vendor, SecureMark Decal Company.

Local media jumps on the story

This actually became a small factor in the Chicago mayoral race because the Clerk, Miguel del Valle, ran for mayor himself.  He often had to explain that he opposed the deal made by the Procurement Department, even though it was for the lowest bid.  And it turns out that he was right in cautioning that move.

What happened was the the new sticker vendor ended up producing decals that didn't have enough adhesive to stay affixed to windows.  It's not like this was a complicated job.  You are making stickers, for Pete's sake!  Of course, if the city actually had done any background checking on this company (which the Clerk's office did), they would have discovered the same problem happened in New York… with the same decal company.  Oops!

Chicago extended sticker deadline twice due to problem

The city eventually had to backtrack and correct this move, at great expensive.  Twice they extended the city sticker deadline, moving it all the way to August 1, during which time no one was ticketed for sticker issues.  A replacement sticker program was instituted which allowed you to bring your non-sticking sticker to an office to get a replacement.  Amy and I purchased our stickers rather early, and they were probably part of the "bad batch" of stickers that wouldn't adhere to the windows.  She got a replacement sticker for her car.  However, my sticker didn't seem to have any problems, as it continued to stay stuck to the window.  All was good.

Until February.

February 2: My car is covered in snow

We got a lot of snow.  My car was covered by snow and ice for quite a while.  And it's my guess that the crazy weather helped dry out the sticker adhesive once and for all, as my sticker fell off my windshield and sat on the dashboard.  Since I work from home, I don't use my car everyday.  And wouldn't you know it, as soon as those parking enforcement officers were able to get through the large piles of snow, tickets were being issued.

The actual violation stub

A ticket first showed up on my car on February 15.  The next day, another ticket was added, and this was when we first discovered that tickets had been issued.  I took my camera out to the car to document what it looked like, including how the sticker had fallen onto the dashboard.  Then I proceeded to use Scotch tape to place my sticker back on the window.

February 16: Sticker has fallen off window onto dashboard

At this point, through the magic of the Internet, I found a very helpful resource: local Chicago parking issue blog, TheExpiredMeter.com.  From there I learned a lot about the ticket process and what to do next.  In the back of my mind, I felt I might be able to contest the ticket due to the sticker adhesive problems so well documented in 2010.  And based on some of the metrics provided by the blog, an in-person hearing had a pretty high success rate for getting tickets overturned.  Even if it didn't, by not paying the fine and requesting a hearing, I bought myself some time to budget the funds needed to pay the tickets, each being $120 for a total of $240.  Ouch!

$120 x 2 = No thanks!

I filled out the paperwork attached to my tickets and made photocopies of everything.  Then, on February 19, I mailed my formal request for a in-person hearing.  I didn't hear anything back for a while, so I was worried that my request had gotten lost in the mail.

Why am I getting more notices in the mail?

This was compounded when on March 7, I received mailings from the Department of Revenue — a fitting name, how can you win when their whole existence is based on extorting cash from you?  I thought these mailings would be my hearing confirmation, but instead they were additional "Notice of Violation" documents, again reiterating that I had 2 outstanding parking tickets.

Ticket & Evidence Photos viewed online

The paperwork placed a heavy emphasis on paying my tickets, though still offered options for contesting by mail and requesting an in-person hearing.  Digital photos were also included to basically prove the city's case.

February 15: Ticket #1, Evidence Photo #1

These same photos were available to be viewed online by entering both the ticket number and the license plate number.

Website confirms "Hearing Requested"

At this point I was getting the feeling that my original hearing request was lost.  However, I was offered the option to check my ticket status via the Web.  And when I did so, it confirmed that I did have a "Hearing Requested."  With that confirmed (and screenshots taken in case something went wrong), I simply waited for my hearing to be assigned.

In-Person Hearing Confirmation Mailing

That confirmation arrived on March 16 with another piece of paper, this time a "Notification of In-Person Hearing."  Instead of being assigned a specific time and place (which I assume would happen), I was given a window of time and a selection of locations.  In this case, my hearing window was from April 4-8.  I chose to have it at the North location, which was at 2550 W. Addison, right near Lane Tech High School.

February 15: Ticket #1, Evidence Photo #2

In preparation for my hearing, Amy noticed that one of my parking tickets actually had the wrong address on it.  While it was mailed to me correctly, the location address where the ticketing incident took place was wrong.  It appeared that the parking enforcement officer had transposed some of the numbers.  Reading up on this situation, I found out that I could claim that this was an "improper ticket for a violation that happened at a different location."  To prove my case, I could request that the hearing officer look up the tickets issued both before and after my ticket, thus establishing a geographic location for the officer.  This would also prove that the address was blatantly incorrect and would be grounds for dismissal.

February 15: Ticket #1, Evidence Photo #3

Even if I could get that ticket dismissed on a technicality, I still had to fight the general argument that my city sticker was missing and not displayed properly… which was actually true.  For this I spent quite a bit of time pulling up articles about the ticket adhesive problems, while paying special attention to official press releases and quotes from government officials about the problem.  A key quotation I found was from the spokesperson of the City Clerk's office, Kristine Williams.  She noted, "We do believe that the vast majority of stickers sold that had insufficient adhesive were from our first batch of stickers sold in late May/early June."

I tracked down the receipt associated with my city sticker.  Purchase date: June 4.  Bingo!

Additionally, I looked through my iPhoto collection to see if I had taken any pictures of my car buried under the snow during the blizzard, thus helping my argument that the cold weather had an effect of making the sticker fall off.  And sure enough, I found a photo of our street from February 2 that fit the bill.

February 16: Temporarily reattached sticker with tape

While I knew that the sticker adhesive issue was the core of my problem, the city's official policy of delaying enforcement was long past.  They had every right to nail me for this, thus I had to basically take my chances in court.  To help work things favorably, I made sure I dressed up for my hearing, which to be honest made me stand out quite a bit… there were folks there who where wearing pajama pants!   I'm not sure what I expected, but upon walking in the door of the official city location, I was told to proceed to "Hearing Room B."  It should be noted here that I asked Amy to drive me to the hearing, as I wanted to show the non-sticky sticker to the hearing officer, but with my luck would probably have received another ticket for not having the sticker on my car in the parking lot!  (I left it at home, parked safely in the garage.)

Official Violation Code

This was where it became somewhat weird for me.  I walked into "Hearing Room B" and was pretty amazed by what I saw.  It was basically a small room, no windows, horrible fluorescent lighting, beige walls.  There was an elevated platform in the middle, surrounded by mini walls, and a judge sitting right there at a desk with a computer.  In front of that was a podium and a microphone.  Upon walking in, she told me to "be seated, I'll be with you in a few minutes."  I thanked her and she seemed a bit shocked by that, and said in return, "you're welcome."

I was the only person in the room besides her, and it appeared she was finishing up some other work.  So I just sat there in a chair for what seemed like a long time, but really wasn't.  Eventually, an electronic timer was started and she started talking into a microphone, basically explaining that she was an independent "Administrative Law Judge" who did not work for the city, nor did she represent me.  Our conversation was also being recorded.  I was asked to step up to her desk and present my "Notification of In-Person Hearing," and then was told to stand next to the podium.  The 2 ticket numbers were recited along with the violations listed on each.  On my notification, I had highlighted the improper address for the first ticket.  After looking at this for a few seconds, she immediately dismissed that ticket.  Score!

February 16: Ticket #2, Evidence Photo #1

For the 2nd ticket, she pulled up the same parking enforcement officer photos that I was provided and showed them to me on her computer.  She then presented all the information and in effect, rested the case against me.  I was then asked to present my side of the story.

February 16: Ticket #2, Evidence Photo #2

I started my appeal by arguing that this ticket should be dismissed due to the previously reported "defective adhesive" problem.  She looked a bit agitated at this and replied that those issues were resolved a long time ago.  At this point, I started to present evidence, which she had to log accordingly.  I first presented the photo of my car buried in the snow, taken February 2, which I argued contributed to the sticker coming loose from the window.

My second exhibit was another printout I had made featuring two photos.  The first photo showed my dashboard with the sticker detached, as it had appeared after I was ticketed.  The second photo illustrated how I had temporarily corrected this problem by taping the sticker back to my window.

I also presented into evidence my city sticker receipt, noting the purchase date of June 4, and making correlation with various media reports about that timeframe being part of the problem.

The real clincher, however, was when I presented into evidence the sticker itself.  When she took it from me, she noted that "this isn't sticky at all," and proceeded to try to stick it to her laser printer.  It held for 1 second and then fell off.

Finally, I noted that I worked from home at the same address where the violations took place, and as such, did not check my car daily to see if the sticker was still holding.  From my perspective, that was a failure of the sticker itself, and thus I should not have to be held liable.

While I don't know if she agreed with that logic, she then proceeded to dismiss this ticket as well.  I was handed two pieces of paper with the court finding that both violations where "factually inconsistent" and as such, I was not responsible for the fine.  I asked what I should do with these papers, and she joked, "take them out for coffee, as far as I'm concerned."  No other paperwork was needed, so she wished me on my way.  I thanked her with a big grin, and left.

Findings state... I win!

When I returned to the car and told Amy the good news, we were both pretty excited by the fact that we weren't on the hook for $240.  On the way home, we dropped by the City Clerk's office and got a replacement sticker, which I placed on my car soon thereafter.  End of story.

So what was the difference in this whole situation?  First, I think it helped to know what my rights were and the details about requesting a hearing.  Secondly, having a solid paper trail regarding my sticker receipts and photo documentation was pretty huge.  Third, I think correlating the problem regarding the sticker adhesive with media reports and governmental releases helped prove that I knew what I was talking about.  Fourth, the sticker itself was a great visual aid to prove my point.  But to be honest, I think the key in the end was just being polite and considerate to the judge.  She could have gone either way with her decision, and I really do feel that showing her respect helped substantially in my situation.

Here's hoping that the 2011-2012 stickers actually stay on the windows!