Too Many Cars = Jail

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>6 Cars at home have man facing jail</font size></center>

By PAUL KAPLAN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/13/07

Azhar Zaidi has a wife, four children and a home in Roswell. That combination could land him in jail for six months.

Roswell has an ordinance that says only four vehicles parked outside a home can be seen from the street.

Such ordinances are common in metro Atlanta, but they're not strictly enforced.

What makes Zaidi's situation unusual is that he got caught — and then refused to buckle to authorities.

"What am I going to tell my kids — 'Don't come visit me?' Is that what the law is about?" said Zaidi, a U.S. citizen from Pakistan who can have six cars or more parked on his property when his children came home to visit from college.

Many homes in the upscale north Fulton suburb of Roswell have two-car garages, so they can legally have six vehicles on the property because two are hidden from view.

But Zaidi and his family live in one of Roswell's few remaining working-class neighborhoods, where enclosed garages are rare.

Those families are limited to four vehicles in the driveway or carport.

Zaidi and his wife both have cars. So, too, does one of his children living at home. Zaidi also has a stretch limousine from a business he once owned.

That puts him at four — the legal limit in Roswell.

But the Zaidis also have two children attending the University of Georgia who occasionally come home on weekends.

Some of his neighbors had complained to the city's code enforcement office because they thought Zaidi was running a limousine business from his home — which he was not, according to code inspectors who went to the home.

But Zaidi was cited for violating city zoning ordinance 17.3.2, which limits the number of vehicles.

As the population in metro Atlanta swells, so-called nuisance laws are becoming increasingly common.

For example, Cobb County recently created a Quality of Life Unit that targets junked cars and unkempt yards. Several cities, including Duluth, Snellville and Peachtree City, have passed laws limiting the number of unrelated people who can live together in residential neighborhoods.

The rules, city officials say, are designed to protect the integrity of neighborhoods. But some advocacy groups say the laws target immigrants.

Jeffrey Frazier, an attorney who is a neighbor of Zaidi's, was so shocked by the citation Zaidi received in August that he agreed to represent him for free. Frazier argued that the city's law was unconstitutionally broad.

Roswell Municipal Court Judge Maurice Hilliard told the city attorney's office he was concerned about the law, noting that he was having a big group over for Thanksgiving and would have more than four cars parked at his own home, recalled Bob Hulsey, the assistant city attorney.

But Hilliard found the law constitutional and sentenced Zaidi to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. He offered to suspend the sentence if Zaidi agreed not to violate the law again.

Zaidi declined the offer. His family situation would pose a problem, he said, and he didn't want to face jail at a code enforcer's whim.

"Right now there are four cars here," Zaidi told a guest one recent afternoon. "If a pizza delivery guy comes, and a code enforcement officer gives me a ticket, I go to jail."

Frazier is appealing the initial ruling. If Fulton Superior Court finds Roswell's ordinance unconstitutional, the city — and possibly several others — will have to rewrite their law.

If Roswell's law is upheld, the case will go back to the municipal judge, who's not obligated to suspend the sentence, according to the judge's solicitor, Milton Barwick.

In other words, Zaidi, 49, could be sent to jail.

That would be silly, said Dr. Dorsia D. Eubanks, a veterinarian who lives up the street from Zaidi and was among those who had complained.

"I think somebody would be stupid to go to jail for something like that," she said.

Her complaint, she said, was nothing personal.

"It's a concern for the neighborhood, " she said. "It'll become a slum if we're not careful."

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2007/03/12/0313metroswell.html
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
This is clearly a violation of the right to peaceful assembly. Especially when you consider the fact that the multiple cars are there temporarilly.
 

modified

Rising Star
Registered
It's sad that this type of law exists w/ vague interpretations of it but municipalities have tried enforcing unconstitutional and other absurd laws in the past. e.g. chicago gang loitering ordinance which was subsequently overturned. It's just up to us to challenge the legality of the law or have it re written to avoid the kind of mess we have here.
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
They might be using the ordinance because it sounds like those in violation of the ordinance are mohammedians.
@FAY, peaceful assembly is for people. It doesn't extend to automobiles, boats, skateboards or anything else.

At any rate, they are in violation of the city ordinance and it is up to the city to enforce it or not. If the city is uneven about it, then they need to get a judge involved and prove it but if the judge only rules on the spirit of the ordinance, it won't change and somebody is at least paying a fine.

-VG
 

modified

Rising Star
Registered
VegasGuy said:
They might be using the ordinance because it sounds like those in violation of the ordinance are mohammedians.
@FAY, peaceful assembly is for people. It doesn't extend to automobiles, boats, skateboards or anything else.

At any rate, they are in violation of the city ordinance and it is up to the city to enforce it or not. If the city is uneven about it, then they need to get a judge involved and prove it but if the judge only rules on the spirit of the ordinance, it won't change and somebody is at least paying a fine.

-VG

Yeah thats the big issue I wonder if code enforcement is patrolling Hilliards part of town :rolleyes:

"Roswell Municipal Court Judge Maurice Hilliard told the city attorney's office he was concerned about the law, noting that he was having a big group over for Thanksgiving and would have more than four cars parked at his own home, recalled Bob Hulsey, the assistant city attorney."

Its funny because this would've never become an issue if the neighbors were friendly/amicable. People are a trip sometimes.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
VegasGuy said:
They might be using the ordinance because it sounds like those in violation of the ordinance are mohammedians.
@FAY, peaceful assembly is for people. It doesn't extend to automobiles, boats, skateboards or anything else.

At any rate, they are in violation of the city ordinance and it is up to the city to enforce it or not. If the city is uneven about it, then they need to get a judge involved and prove it but if the judge only rules on the spirit of the ordinance, it won't change and somebody is at least paying a fine.

-VG
Good point, but I don't agree. An automobile is merely a tool for movement, especially in an area that has no mass transportation. There is no public harm involved, and no compelling reason to forbid such actions. It is up to the government to prove need of a law, not for us to disprove the negative.
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Fuckallyall said:
Good point, but I don't agree. An automobile is merely a tool for movement, especially in an area that has no mass transportation. There is no public harm involved, and no compelling reason to forbid such actions. It is up to the government to prove need of a law, not for us to disprove the negative.

You may disagree. And when you see a car on the witness stand giving testimony let me know. Freedom of assembly is a right bestowed to people in the first amendment. Didn't say shit about cars when I read it. The only freedom of assembly a car has is when it's at the plant. Cars might have names but they ain't people and thus doesn't have constitutional protections.

-VG
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
VegasGuy said:
You may disagree. And when you see a car on the witness stand giving testimony let me know. Freedom of assembly is a right bestowed to people in the first amendment. Didn't say shit about cars when I read it. The only freedom of assembly a car has is when it's at the plant. Cars might have names but they ain't people and thus doesn't have constitutional protections.

-VG
You mischaracterize my statement. I am saying that a person has a right to have thier property with them as well. That law is the equivalent of telling someone they can never have more than a couple of pairs of sneakers in public view, even if it's for a temporary period of time. How would you like it if you could get put in jail for having fam come over for dinner ?
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Fuckallyall said:
You mischaracterize my statement. I am saying that a person has a right to have thier property with them as well. That law is the equivalent of telling someone they can never have more than a couple of pairs of sneakers in public view, even if it's for a temporary period of time. How would you like it if you could get put in jail for having fam come over for dinner ?
Don't think so. According to the ordinance, 5 cars is the max. The sixth puts them in violation. Not difficult to understand is it? You must be new to the neighborhood and never had to deal with an HOA before but I digress.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing what this effectively does to large families. You are correct about how it puts a burden on the homeowner if family shows up for turkey. (which is probably why it isn't enforced much) But if someone speaks up to enforce the ordinance, the homeowner has to get a lawyer. That's how the courts are going to look at it. Judges are not allowed a point of view not spelled out in the law/ordinance itself. What needs to happen now is the law has to be removed/changed. It may have had good intentions at the time it was written, but it's bad law.

-VG
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
VegasGuy said:
Don't think so. According to the ordinance, 5 cars is the max. The sixth puts them in violation. Not difficult to understand is it? You must be new to the neighborhood and never had to deal with an HOA before but I digress.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing what this effectively does to large families. You are correct about how it puts a burden on the homeowner if family shows up for turkey. (which is probably why it isn't enforced much) But if someone speaks up to enforce the ordinance, the homeowner has to get a lawyer. That's how the courts are going to look at it. Judges are not allowed a point of view not spelled out in the law/ordinance itself. What needs to happen now is the law has to be removed/changed. It may have had good intentions at the time it was written, but it's bad law.

-VG
I agree it's a bad law, with good intentions (as most bad laws are). BTW, I'm president of my HOA, which is one of the reasons I have such venom when it comes to these ridiculous ordinances.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
VG said:
Judges are not allowed a point of view not spelled out in the law/ordinance itself.
Not really. An ordinance (passed by local governments) like statutes (passed by state legislatures and Congress), must meet constitutional muster, therefore, a judge has to look beyond what is "spelled out in the law/ordinance itself." If that were not so, a law or ordinance which, on its face, calls for blatant racial discrimination would have to be given effect -- because judges are not allowed a point of view not spelled out in the law/ordinance itself. Clearly, thats not the case.

QueEx
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
In most states, laws like this are not enforced regularly. The cost of living in upscale/enclosed communities is pricey, when violation of rules/laws(cough, cough), are involved. If you dont adhere to the rules of the community, you have to move, plain and simple. The way it usually goes, almost automatically, you pay a fine, get a suspended jail sentence.


Que,

Why is it that he would spend time in jail again?
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
QueEx said:
Not really. An ordinance (passed by local governments) like statutes (passed by state legislatures and Congress), must meet constitutional muster, therefore, a judge has to look beyond what is "spelled out in the law/ordinance itself." If that were not so, a law or ordinance which, on its face, calls for blatant racial discrimination would have to be given effect -- because judges are not allowed a point of view not spelled out in the law/ordinance itself. Clearly, thats not the case.

QueEx

Not at all clear as you spell it out.

Unless there is a constitutinal challange by the attorney representing a client, and it would be a seperate matter in this action, the law is what it is QueEx. It won't be settled by a local judge. That issue would have to be spelled out in the complaint against the city, which automatically drops it in the laps of the circuit. Those guys don't move fast and it means the homeowner has to front ALL the money for the action if he or she got it like that. Most suck it up and pay the fine.

In the meanwhile, he either sits in jail or bonds out in the meantime. My guess is it is the reason why the law is still on the books. I've worked for enough judges enough to know how that works. These guys are about the process. That stuff on the tube on TV isn't real law.

-VG
 

femmenoire

Modded Moderator Modding
BGOL Investor
Jail is extreme for that kind of violation. Usually the HOA just fines you.


I know that in my community, they tow before even fining. But it's actually necessary since it's rather small, not following the codes can be harmful to the community. For example, blocking fire lanes and fire hydrants and impeding traffic.

But again, in a community with luxury homes, I'd expect a little more leniency. What if he had a party at his home?
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
femmenoire said:
Jail is extreme for that kind of violation. Usually the HOA just fines you.


I know that in my community, they tow before even fining. But it's actually necessary since it's rather small, not following the codes can be harmful to the community. For example, blocking fire lanes and fire hydrants and impeding traffic.

But again, in a community with luxury homes, I'd expect a little more leniency. What if he had a party at his home?

I don't know this is an HOA issue but a town ordinance. An HOA can take your house for violations if they want to but I don't know this particular law provides for that kind of extreme. At the same time, I don't know if this ordinance gives the judge the kind of lattitude needed to do this or just toss the complaint outright. The newsstory didn't say if they even read the ordinance to say if this dude had an out. Could be the point is to show how white people are going after a mohammadian living in Roswell.

-VG
 

femmenoire

Modded Moderator Modding
BGOL Investor
VegasGuy said:
I don't know this is an HOA issue but a town ordinance. An HOA can take your house for violations if they want to but I don't know this particular law provides for that kind of extreme. At the same time, I don't know if this ordinance gives the judge the kind of lattitude needed to do this or just toss the complaint outright. The newsstory didn't say if they even read the ordinance to say if this dude had an out. Could be the point is to show how white people are going after a mohammadian living in Roswell.

-VG

Well then that is extreme. In GA, you can go to jail for violating city ordinances such as jumping a turnstyle at a train station, jaywalking, or cursing in public. It rarely happens, but I suppose if one wanted to pursue it vehemently, i.e. an angry neighbor, a disgruntled police officer, etc., they could rightfully do so.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
VegasGuy said:
Not at all clear as you spell it out.

Unless there is a constitutinal challange by the attorney representing a client, and it would be a seperate matter in this action,
How else would it be challenged? - you have to have a plaintiff with "Standing" -- that is, someone affected or subject to be affected by the ordinance, wouldn't you ???

I beleive it safe to say that EVERY law, rule, statute, etc., is open to constitutional challenge in the court with jurisdiction to hear the violation that is alleged to have occurred. EVERY.

It won't be settled by a local judge. That issue would have to be spelled out in the complaint against the city, which automatically drops it in the laps of the circuit.
I don't think so hombre. A challenge would more than likely originate either:
(a) in the municipal court (a court of <u>limited jurisdiction</u>) on the charge that the defendant violated the local ordinance -- in which case the municipal judge finds the ordinance constitutional and imposes punishment for the violation; or, the municipal judge agrees with the defendant that the local ordinance does not meet consitutional muster, case dismissed and ordinance invalid and cannot be enforced against any other person.

(b) If the defendant is found to have violated the local ordinance, he appeals to the Circuit court (or whatever that court might be called that has <u>general jurisdiction</u>) where he (i) contends he was not in violation of the ordinance; or (ii) contends that even if his conduct violated the ordinance, the ordinance itself is unconstitutional.

If the Circuit court agrees with the defendant that the ordinance is violative of either the state or U.S. Constitution, the ordinance is struck down -- and its up to the local government to appeal that decision to the appropriate appellate court. If, on the other hand, the Circuit Court finds the ordinance constitutional, it would be left to the defendant to appeal that decision to the appropriate appellate court.​

Hence, in either of the scenarious above, the "Local Courts" have jurisdiction to invalidate the ordinance on constitutional or some other grounds. The effect of local invalidation is that there is no "reported opinion" that would appear in the case law, hence, while the ordinance would be invalid, it would still subject to appellate review ultimately on its validity -- but the local government still would not be able to enforce the ordinance.

QueEx
 

histick

Potential Star
Registered
Wow what a bunch of bullshit. So the moment a person has six cars parked in his residence he can be fined and/or jailed? There has to be some sort of clause mentioning the amount of time cars can be parked before an infraction occurs (i.e after 24 hours with 6 visible cars results in an infraction).

Like Femm mentioned, what if a person is having a party or gathering of some sort. The visitor's cars can end up in a ordinance violation for the home owner. Such bullshit.

There is similiar law in San Jose, CA. You will not get jail time but the offending car can be towed. The ordinance is something like a vehicle may not be stored (parked) on the street for more than three days. I am almost sure that a car with expired tags can be towed if parked out on the street. I think both may be the same ordinance but I know there is one regarding parking on the street.
 

Armageddon

Potential Star
Registered
Don't think so. According to the ordinance, 5 cars is the max. The sixth puts them in violation. Not difficult to understand is it?
4 cars is the max, the 5th puts you in violation as seen here:
Roswell has an ordinance that says only four vehicles parked outside a home can be seen from the street.
The people of means in the area have garages in which they can have two vehicles stored (not viewed from the street) and the man has a point. Since time is not specified if he gets a pizza delivered and everyone is home, he is subject to get a fine @ the officers' whim!
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I tried to pull the Roswell ordinance online but that city apparently does not subscribe to the municode website. If someone knows of another city that has a parking limitation similar to Roswell's please post it -- I want to see exactly what the ordinance says and offer some tips.

QueEx
 
Top