Today's column on a plea deal in a forged parking pass case raised an interesting question: Why did the State's Attorney's Office charge a man accused of trying to sell a fake pass on the Internet under a seemingly obtuse state statute when they could've used a more clearly written city law?

The attorney for the suspect argued that his client was charged under the wrong law because it made illegal the use of fake "tokens" that need to be inserted into a box. That obviously isn't the way parking passes put on dashboards or attached to windshields work. His client agreed to community service and to forfeit his parking rights in exchange for criminal charges being dropped.

Bob Harkum, the chair of the Residential Parking Permit Board, wrote me this about the city law, and I'm awaiting an answer from prosecutors:

§ 10-42.  Counterfeiting or altering permit.
 
 No person may:
 
  (1) copy, create, or otherwise produce any counterfeit or facsimile of a residential area parking permit; or
 
  (2) alter any permit issued under this subtitle to change its expiration date or any condition of its use.
 
You also may not show an invalid permit, sell or require use of a valid one, falsify information or help someone falsify information or get a permit to which they are not entitled. I was expecting, on this Craigslist caper, the $500 Civil Citation, as criminal charges on first time, etc. seemed stiff, BUT is doable under CITY Law:
 
§ 10-52.  Prohibited conduct – Criminal penalties.
 
 Any person who violates any provision of Part VII {"Prohibited Conduct"} of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction, is subject to fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for not more than 12 months or to both fine and imprisonment for each offense.
(Ord. 06-316,)
 
The Civil Citation:
 
§ 10-51.  Prohibited conduct – Enforcement by citation.
 
 (a)  In general.
 
  In addition to any other civil or criminal remedy or enforcement procedure, Part VII {"Prohibited Conduct"} of this subtitle may be enforced by issuance of a civil citation under City Code Article 1, Subtitle 41 {"Civil Citations"}.
 
 (b)  Process not exclusive.
 
  The issuance of a citation to enforce Part VII of this subtitle does not preclude pursuing any other civil or criminal remedy or enforcement action authorized by law.
(Ord. 06-316,)
 
We  worked very hard to make all the element that naturally follow out of your "common sense tells you..." a reality in the City Law. I checked RPP Laws all around the country (check how stiff LA's "Preferred Parking" -- their RPP- fines and rules are) before presenting to Council a request to add sections to RPP re: Prohibited Conduct and Penalties.
 
Why States Attys decided to use that section of code to charge Foster is beyond me. 
 
We had hoped that compliance with the law really would rely on the stiff Civil fines that were put in place.
 
Be nice if you added a follow up: "For those of you cranking up the Printer/Scanners because of Foster case"..., know that CITY law does prohibit "screwing with the program."  PCA's are now testing marking the 2 hour window via computer-equipped vehicles with OTR and GPS.  We are working on the link to MOIT/PA for updates re: who has moved out and no longer has valid decal/permits. 
 
City residents who live in RPP areas should have as much a right to expect a possible parking space on their return from 8 hours as much as anyone who lives with a 20' foot curb cut giving them exclusive street space rights to a driveway to pull in right next to his house.
 
We're trying to make that happen.