San Francisco - Parking at OAK Longterm - Received Out-of-state Registration Ticket!>*!*!??!?

I just got a call from one of my employees. He told me that one of our company trucks that was parked in long-term parking at OAK from Wed Oct 6 to Sun Oct 10 was ticketed for having out of state plates.

...!!?!?

Anyone with any experience in fighting one of these?

I'm inclined to write a letter to the GM for the Oakland airport to tell him that I'm taking my firm's business to SFO since they don't seem to have a problem doing BS like this.

Is there a law in California these days about being from out of state??

For further replies, please follow as the thread moves to our San Francisco forum, where all Bay Area issues are discussed. Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.

[The OP may have been cited as the enforcement agency [Port of Oakland] which uses Oakland P.D. was intending to enforce the State law that requires California businesses/residents using vehicles in the state to have California auto registrations. Police agency may have inferred from business address on truck that it was subject to the law.]

[The OP may have been cited as the enforcement agency [Port of Oakland] which uses Oakland P.D. was intending to enforce the State law that requires California businesses/residents using vehicles in the state to have California auto registrations. Police agency may have inferred from business address on truck that it was subject to the law.]

Learn something new every day.

I understand police trolling through housing complexes, motel parking lots, and other places looking for revenue. What bothers me is that I'm not doing business in CA. Flying through OAK is not a business transaction.

Any check of the FTB or Secretary of State's website would've shown that.

What really gets me is that you can't park a car with out of state plates in CA for 4 days before they start assuming the worst. Not only that, it was assumed to be in more or less a private lot.

No wonder business and people leave CA in droves. This is extreme!

(FYI- it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that what state the plates were from. The car wasn't in CA for more than a few hours before the employee began his travel.)

Sounds like some parking ticket enforcer had an argument with their spouse the night before and was taking it out on people parked in the lot! This has got to be complete nonsense, but it will be a hassle getting it taken care of.

It's not clear if OP has the full story yet, though they are already protesting the ticket, and we certainly don't. It would be good to know the full wording of the ticket (simply said "out of state plates"?) and what the parking enforcement agency said when the employee or OP presumably contacted them. I don't understand the comment that it's obvious the employee was only in California for a few hours before flying out. It appears from the post that the company's trucks regularly use the lots at the area's airports but are registered elsewhere. Maybe they, and the company, are from Nevada and for some reason the employees regularly drive to Oakland Airport (and are considering instead regularly using SFO, regardless of differences in air fares) and then fly out. Writing to the GM of the Oakland airport would not seem to be productive if the police were using a California law. OP could run into the same problem at SFO. I believe that many states require vehicles in their state for a particular length of time to be registered in that state (usually 3 months, I think). If they just "assume the worst" after 4 days, and the employee wasn't violating the law, it would seem possible to avoid paying a fine.

I doubt people are leaving California in droves due to fines on vehicles registered from out of state since such people are, presumably, not living in California. And i believe parking laws can be applied to vehicles on almost any lot, even those that are "more or less" private.

Since we don't have all of the facts yet, maybe it's too early to jump to conclusions. Doesn't mean enforcement of the law-- in a public lot-- is warranted. We don't know yet. I'd be interested to know how this turns out.

It's not clear if OP has the full story yet, though they are already protesting the ticket, and we certainly don't. It would be good to know the full wording of the ticket (simply said "out of state plates"?) and what the parking enforcement agency said when the employee or OP presumably contacted them. I don't understand the comment that it's obvious the employee was only in California for a few hours before flying out. It appears from the post that the company's trucks regularly use the lots at the area's airports but are registered elsewhere. Maybe they, and the company, are from Nevada and for some reason the employees regularly drive to Oakland Airport (and are considering instead regularly using SFO, regardless of differences in air fares) and then fly out. Writing to the GM of the Oakland airport would not seem to be productive if the police were using a California law. OP could run into the same problem at SFO. I believe that many states require vehicles in their state for a particular length of time to be registered in that state (usually 3 months, I think). If they just "assume the worst" after 4 days, and the employee wasn't violating the law, it would seem possible to avoid paying a fine.

I doubt people are leaving California in droves due to fines on vehicles registered from out of state since such people are, presumably, not living in California. And i believe parking laws can be applied to vehicles on almost any lot, even those that are "more or less" private.

Since we don't have all of the facts yet, maybe it's too early to jump to conclusions. Doesn't mean enforcement of the law-- in a public lot-- is warranted. We don't know yet. I'd be interested to know how this turns out.

I intend to protest the ticket. I'll look up the specific CVC violation, and post it later.

The dumb part is that Nevada is only 200 miles away from the location in question. Not to get all "full faith and credit" on this issue, but the car wasn't in California for 20 days (http://www.chp.ca.gov/prog/cheaters.cgi) to be in violation of the law.

It's my understanding that the law has two components: how long the vehicle is in the state, and how long the driver is in the state. Both have different periods before being in violation. A third hurdle is the is the business conducting business in the state (which the answer is no).

The reason I'd write to the GM of OAK is that the ticket was harassment. It's a revenue generator that OAK is content to let happen. In all the many years of flying into and out of so many different airports in the world, I've never had a parking ticket in long term parking, nor even seen a meter maid. So why give my business to an airport with meter maids in long term parking?

I'm content with SFO in that the $14 per day I pay there seems to keep my car safe (or at least not burned up yet!). The same fee that's paid to OAK has parking officers patrolling the lots looking for "violations". A pretty crappy way to generate revenue since these vehicles aren't on the street and registration issues should be overlooked (other than the obvious plate expired in 2008 when it's 2010).

If you have a gripe with the public airport lot, wouldn't your remedy be to take your business to a private OAK lot? I don't see how this would be a good reason to switch to SFO (of course there might be other reasons to do that).

The ticket was for " CVC 4152.5 ". Written in the Complaiant box was: "Ca Reg Fees Due, CA Based Veh".

Good luck on the protest and let us know how it turns out. You do say (I gather) that the vehicle or vehicles, registered in Nevada, are in California on a regular basis, and parked at area airports for long periods of time. I'm guessing that if the parking enforcement agency somehow feels that the vehicles are there for prolonged periods of time on a regular basis they may not need to be there for 20 days at a stretch to be in violation of the cited statute. But I'm just guessing. Are you sure that the parking ticket revenue goes to the Oakland airport and that the airport's GM has the discretion to say that the parking regulation should not be enforced on airport property (if the ticketing is legal)?

Good luck on the protest and let us know how it turns out. You do say (I gather) that the vehicle or vehicles, registered in Nevada, are in California on a regular basis, and parked at area airports for long periods of time. I'm guessing that if the parking enforcement agency somehow feels that the vehicles are there for prolonged periods of time on a regular basis they may not need to be there for 20 days at a stretch to be in violation of the cited statute. But I'm just guessing. Are you sure that the parking ticket revenue goes to the Oakland airport and that the airport's GM has the discretion to say that the parking regulation should not be enforced on airport property (if the ticketing is legal)?

My contention with the airport is that the GM has the ability to determine which actions the city takes that can either help or hurt his business, specifically, letting the meter maids patrol areas that are not metered. It's not the police investigating a crime, but the revenue generating ticket writers. It's a no win scenario, that even if the meter maid is correct, doesn't generate any good will with the patrons who may not choose to use OAK or OAK's facilities (like long-term parking).

My contention with the airport is that the GM has the ability to determine which actions the city takes that can either help or hurt his business, specifically, letting the meter maids patrol areas that are not metered. It's not the police investigating a crime, but the revenue generating ticket writers. It's a no win scenario, that even if the meter maid is correct, doesn't generate any good will with the patrons who may not choose to use OAK or OAK's facilities (like long-term parking).

A vehicle is parked in a public lot (the Port of Oakland being a public entity), and of all the various items the Port is working on, there's a desire that the Port prevent the police--Port, city, county, and/or CHP--from being in the lot. I don't see that as ranking high on the Port's list of priorities, presumably as they are likely to have significant occasion to need cops here and there. Indeed, perhaps this truck, with its out-of-state plates, was viewed as a potential threat and so came to the attention of the police. An easy solution would be to use one of the much cheaper, private, off-airport lots.

That said, I do wonder at the situation. I know plenty of students who've had out-of-state cars for a year or longer who've not been cited under this code--although their university (UC Berkeley) is diligent in pointing out the need to register in-state cars being operated here in California. I wonder whether there may have been some separate action near the vehicle in question, or perhaps the vehicle was previously cited for some violation elsewhere in California, or (as noted above) perhaps there was a potential safety concern for a truck with out-of-state plates to be parked in a long-term airport lot, and that brought it to the police's attention. In general, it would be a deterrent to me to park at the Port of Oakland's airport lots if I had the sense my car's various registration details were to be checked simply as the result of parking there.

What's interesting about this is I've rented cars from National with Nevada plates for more than 20 days. I wonder if they pay their pound of flesh to both states?

Just got a "We didn't receive your response. Pay $40 now!" notice. Funny how the amount on the ticket was $100 and now it's $40. And thank goodness for "Return Receipt"!

Not even on the City's website as a offense with a fine. http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/fwawebsite/parking/Pdf/ParkingFines.pdf

Ticket dismissed. Fine refunded.

As a result of this matter, the firm has had only 2 trips (out of a possible 400+) from OAK. All of our business has moved to SFO, and we're much happier. Not to suggest a boycott of OAK, but the move to SFO was worth the slightly higher prices.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8320/4.5.0.81 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

Did you let the folks at OAK know about all the business they lost?