R. Duncan v. City of Philadelphia, Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, 2230 C.D. 2015

On Sept. 12 and Sept. 19, 2013, Robert Duncan received two parking tickets in Philadelphia (expired meter on S. 10th St.; prohibited stop at 1401 Arch St.).
Duncan appealed both tickets to the City’s Bureau of Administrative Adjudication; a hearing examiner found him liable on Feb. 24, 2015.
Duncan appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the Bureau’s decisions as to the two tickets; Duncan then appealed to this Court.
Duncan challenged (1) sufficiency of the tickets under Philadelphia Traffic Code §12-2804(3) (identification/location), (2) validity of electronic signatures under §12-2804(5), (3) various due process claims including alleged bias by the hearing examiner and denial of cross-examination of issuing officers, and (4) alleged noncompliance with a prior settlement (Pavlock).
The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether constitutional rights were violated, errors of law, procedural compliance, and whether findings were supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Duncan)	Defendant's Argument (City/Bureau)	Held
Ticket content sufficiency under §12-2804(3)	Tickets lacked sufficient location detail to identify where vehicle was parked on block	Tickets listed date, time, side of block or address, vehicle make/color/plate, and meter number (where applicable) — sufficient under Code	Tickets satisfied §12-2804(3); claim rejected
Signature requirement under §12-2804(5)	Electronic signatures do not meet requirement that issuing officer "sign" and affirm truth	Electronic signatures have been accepted in prior First Judicial District precedent and are reliable	Electronic signatures comply with §12-2804(5); claim rejected
Due process — hearing examiner impartiality	Examiner, as City employee, commingled prosecutorial and adjudicative roles; examiner’s comment showed bias	Prior precedent holds City-employed hearing examiners are not per se disqualified; no developed showing of prejudice here	No due process violation; impartiality challenge rejected
Right to cross-examine issuing officers	Ticket writers’ absence violated right to cross-examine and required dismissal	Bureau regulations allow officer participation only if respondent first shows officer testimony is necessary; respondent failed to show necessity here	No right to mandatory officer presence; denial of attendance request proper; claim rejected

Kovler v. Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, 6 A.3d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (upheld use of City-employed hearing examiners and limited need for officer testimony)
Boniella v. Commonwealth, 958 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (issues not properly developed in briefs will not be considered on appeal)