Com. v. R.G. Ernest
755 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Danville Borough enacted Ordinance No. 523 (Nov. 2014) adding §237-30, requiring residential parking permit placards in designated residential areas (including Vine Street) during specified hours. Borough posted signs notifying the restriction.
- Police initially rescinded many tickets to allow adjustment to the ordinance; rescissions largely stopped by May–June 2015.
- On June 16, 2015, Robert G. Ernest was cited for parking on Vine Street without displaying the residential permit placard; he did display a handicapped placard but refused to display the residential placard and told the police chief he would not do so “no matter what.”
- Ernest subpoenaed Borough council members and the mayor; the trial court quashed those subpoenas as unsupported.
- A Magisterial District Judge found Ernest guilty; on de novo review the trial court affirmed the conviction and assessed fines totaling $93.50.
- Ernest appealed pro se raising numerous claims: that his handicapped placard exempted him from the residential placard requirement; due process/equal protection violations; ADA/FHA claims for failure to provide an on‑street handicapped space; Brady/Fourteenth Amendment claims; subpoena error; and unlawful tracking by the Borough.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ernest) | Defendant's Argument (Borough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a handicapped placard exempts resident from residential permit requirement | Handicapped placard should allow parking without residential placard | Ordinance requires residential placard regardless of handicapped placard | Rejected — handicapped placard does not exempt resident; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support summary conviction | Claimed compliance via handicapped placard or exemption | Ernest admitted receipt of residential placard but refused to display it; testimony supported enforcement | Sufficient evidence — guilty verdict upheld |
| Subpoenas for Borough officials | Needed testimony/documents from council and mayor | Subpoenas were unsupported and overbroad | Trial court properly quashed subpoenas; issue waived/fails |
| Constitutional and statutory claims (due process, equal protection, ADA, FHA, Brady, tracking) | Ordinance/enforcement violated constitutional and disability statutes; Borough failed to produce records; illegal tracking | Borough lawfully enacted and enforced ordinance; Ernest did not sufficiently plead or support these claims | Court found arguments incoherent/undeveloped and waived; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Geigley, 650 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (local residential parking restrictions not overridden by a handicapped placard)
- Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (standard of review and sufficiency of evidence in summary conviction appeals)
- Daly v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 631 A.2d 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (pro se litigants are held to procedural and substantive requirements)
- City of Philadelphia v. Berman, 863 A.2d 156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (failure to develop arguments in brief constitutes waiver of issues)