P. Tyrell v. City of Philadelphia
P. Tyrell v. City of Philadelphia - 354 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 21, 2017Background
- Tyrell received a parking citation on Nov. 12, 2014, and admitted his car extended about six inches past the parking-space boundary; he argued it was to leave room for the car behind.
- The BAA found Tyrell liable on Feb. 9, 2015, and the BAA Appeal Panel affirmed on May 7, 2015.
- Tyrell appealed to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; that court reversed the BAA on Feb. 18, 2016, reasoning the ticket was facially defective and suggesting a de minimis defense might apply.
- The City sought reconsideration and then appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The City argued the trial court relied on facts outside the record and used the wrong standard of review.
- The Commonwealth Court found (1) parking violations had been decriminalized and are civil, so the trial court erred treating them as summary offenses capable of de minimis disposition, and (2) the ticket referenced a non-existent Code subpart ("12-903 C"), creating potential facial insufficiency.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded to the trial court to determine whether the administrative record was complete and whether to take additional evidence or remand to the BAA for clarification/proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Tyrell's Argument | City/BAA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ticket was facially sufficient | Ticket referenced actionable Code section; Tyrell also argued de minimis or necessity-type defense (protecting vehicles) | City argued the BAA properly adjudicated under cited provision | Ticket referenced a non-existent subpart ("12-903(c)"); facial insufficiency raised; remanded to determine record completeness and next step |
| Whether trial court could treat violation as a summary offense and apply de minimis doctrine | Tyrell supported trial court reversal on that basis | City/BAA argued parking violations are civil (decriminalized) not summary offenses | Commonwealth Court held parking violations are civil; trial court erred in treating them as summary offenses or applying de minimis doctrine |
| Whether trial court relied on facts outside the administrative record | Tyrell and trial court inferred the ticketer meant a different Code provision (12-913) allowing necessary parking | City/BAA argued trial court assumed facts not of record and failed to follow scope of review | Court found trial court did assume facts not established and directed remand to determine if record is complete and whether additional evidence or remand is required |
| Appropriate standard/scope of review for appellate court reviewing BAA | Tyrell argued BAA erred as a matter of law and lacked substantial evidence | City/BAA argued trial court and appellate review must adhere to limited scope (constitutional, legal error, procedural, substantial evidence) | Commonwealth Court did not resolve substantive standard questions because it vacated and remanded for the trial court to address record completeness and possible further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Neill v. City of Philadelphia, 711 A.2d 544 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (transfer of parking enforcement from Traffic Court to Director of Finance decriminalized parking offenses)
- Kovler v. Bureau of Administrative Review, 6 A.3d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of appellate review of local agency decisions when no new evidence taken)