THE COURTS
Title 234--RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. GENERAL
[234 PA. CODE CH. 50]
Order Amending Rules Relating to Electronic Filing of Parking Citations; No. 211; Doc. No. 2
[26 Pa.B. 3628]
Order Per Curiam:
Now, this 17th day of July, 1996, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; this Recommendation having been published at 25 Pa.B. 4221 (October 7, 1995) and in the Pennsylvania Reporter (Atlantic Second Series Advance Sheets Vol. 664) before adoption, with a Final Report to be published with this Order:
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 61 and 95 are hereby amended, all in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective January 1, 1997.
The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee has prepared a Final Report explaining the July 17, 1996 amendments to Rules of Criminal Procedure 61 (Procedures Following Filing of Citation--Issuance of Summons) and 95 (Proceedings in Summary Cases Charging Parking Violations). These amendments specifically permit and facilitate the electronic filing of parking citations. The Final Report follows the Court's Order.
Annex A
TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. GENERAL
CHAPTER 50. PROCEDURE IN SUMMARY CASES
PART IIB. PROCEDURES WHEN CITATION FILED Rule 61. [Procedure] Procedures Following Filing of Citation--Issuance of Summons.
(A) Upon the filing of the citation, the issuing authority shall issue a summons commanding the defendant to respond within [ten (]10[)] days of receipt of the summons, unless the issuing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant will not obey a summons in which case an arrest warrant shall be issued. The summons shall be served as provided in these rules.
(B) Except in cases charging parking violations when the citation is electronically filed, [A] a copy of the citation shall be served with the summons.
(C) In cases charging parking violations when the citation is electronically filed, the summons shall also include:
(1) the date, time and location of the parking violation;
(2) a description of the vehicle and the license number; and
(3) a description of the parking violation.
Official Note: Previous Rule 117, adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended effective May 1, 1970; revised January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered and amended to apply only to summary cases September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended April 26, 1979, effective July 1, 1979; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; rescinded July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986, and replaced by present Rule 76. Present Rule 61, adopted July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986. The January 1, 1986 effective dates all are extended to July 1, 1986; amended July 17, 1996, effective January 1, 1997.
Comment [This rule is derived from previous Rule 51A, subparagraphs (1)(b) and (3)(b), and previous Rule 57(a).]
No fine or costs should be specified in the summons in cases in which the issuing authority determines that there is a likelihood of imprisonment.
This rule was amended in 1996 to facilitate the electronic filing of citations charging parking violations. See Rule 95 (Proceedings in Summary Cases Charging Parking Violations).
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the July 17, 1996 amendments published with the Court's Order at 26 Pa.B. 3629 (August 3, 1996).
PART VIII. PROCEDURES IN SUMMARY CASES CHARGING PARKING VIOLATIONS Rule 95. Proceedings in Summary Cases Charging Parking Violations.
(a) Political subdivisions may use parking tickets to inform defendants of parking violations and to offer defendants an opportunity to avoid criminal proceedings by paying an amount specified on the ticket within the time specified on the ticket. When a political subdivision does use parking tickets and a ticket has been handed to a defendant or placed on a vehicle windshield, a criminal proceeding shall be instituted only if the defendant fails to respond as requested on the ticket. In that event, the criminal proceeding shall be instituted by a law enforcement officer filing a citation with the proper issuing authority. Upon the filing of the citation, the case shall proceed in the same manner as other summary cases instituted by filing a citation, in accordance with Rules 61--64.
(b) When a parking ticket has not been used, a criminal proceeding in a summary case charging a parking violation shall be instituted by a law enforcement officer issuing a citation either by handing it to a defendant or by placing it on a vehicle windshield. Upon the issuance of a citation, the case shall ordinarily proceed in the same manner as other summary cases instituted by issuing a citation to the defendant, in accordance with Rules 55--59. If the defendant fails to respond to the citation, the issuing authority shall issue a summons and the case shall then proceed in accordance with Rules 61--64 as if the proceedings were instituted by filing a citation, unless the issuing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant will not obey a summons, in which case an arrest warrant shall be issued and the case shall proceed in accordance with Rule 76.
(c) The filing of a citation charging a parking violation may be accomplished by electronic filing.
Official Note: Adopted July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; effective date extended to July 1, 1986; amended July 17, 1996, effective January 1, 1997.
Comment [This rule replaces previous Rule 51A(2).] Many political subdivisions use parking tickets and, therefore, many parking cases are disposed of without instituting a criminal proceeding under the procedures of these rules. A parking ticket is a device of convenience to the local government and the defendant. It is not a citation and does not constitute the instituting of a summary proceeding; no enforcement of penalty can be based upon a ticket alone.
The amount specified on a parking ticket cannot exceed the fine authorized for the parking violation alleged. There is no specific time which must be specified on the ticket, although, of course, it is advisable that such time be well within the applicable statute of limitations.
If the defendant pays the amount specified on the parking ticket within the time specified on the ticket, the case will be concluded without the institution of a criminal proceeding. If the defendant makes no response within the suggested time, or if the defendant indicates a desire to plead not guilty, and the subdivision desires to proceed with the case, a law enforcement officer must determine the identity of the vehicle owner from the Department of Transportation and then institute a criminal proceeding by filing a citation directly with the proper issuing authority under paragraph (a) of this rule.
Paragraph (c) was added in 1996 to specifically authorize that a citation charging a parking violation may be filed electronically.
When a parking ticket is not used and a criminal proceeding is instituted under paragraph (b) of this rule by issuing a citation to a defendant, if the defendant does not properly respond to the citation, the issuing authority must notify the law enforcement officer, who should obtain from the Department of Transportation the name of the owner of the vehicle. The law enforcement officer should immediately furnish this information to the issuing authority, who [shall] must then issue a summons[,] or a warrant.
[With regard to] See Rule 21 for the ''proper'' issuing authority as used in these rules[, see Rule 21].
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the July 17, 1996 amendments published with the Court's Order at 26 Pa.B. 3629 (August 3, 1996).
FINAL REPORT
Amendments to Pa.R.Crim.P. 95:
Electronic Filing of Parking CitationsIntroduction
On July 17, 1996, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Supreme Court amended Rule of Criminal Procedure 95 (Proceedings in Summary Cases Charging Parking Violations) to specifically permit the electronic filing of parking citations, and amended Rule of Criminal Procedure 61 (Procedures Following Filing of Citation--Issuance of Summons) to facilitate these electronic filings. These amendments will be effective January 1, 1997.
This Final Report highlights the Committee's considerations in formulating this amendment.1
Discussion
The Committee undertook consideration of the use of electronic filing in cases governed by the Criminal Rules after receiving inquiries from some municipalities and the Supreme Court's Judicial Computer Project Staff (JCP).
JCP pointed out in its correspondence that, now that all the district justice offices are computerized and on the statewide network, the technology is in place within the district justice system for parking citations to be electronically filed. Furthermore, both JCP and the municipal correspondents suggested that permitting electronic filings will reduce the amount of paper work that must be completed to process the parking citations, as well as reduce the costs of processing these citations.
Accepting the correspondents' premise that electronic filing was a cost-effective and efficient means of transmitting documents, the Committee reviewed Rule 95 (Proceedings in Summary Cases Charging Parking Violations). Our first consideration was whether electronic filing could be accomplished under the present provisions of Rule 95 or whether an amendment was necessary. Recognizing that electronic filings in court proceedings are still a relatively new process that is not fully accepted in the legal community, the Committee concluded that if electronic filing of parking citations was going to be permitted, specific reference to this procedure should be made in the rule.
Our second consideration was the effect electronic filing of parking citations would have on defendants. From our review of the rule, the Committee consensus was that electronic filing would have little, if any, impact on defendants. First, we noted that the filing of the parkingcitation occurs only after either a parking ticket or the parking citation is issued to a defendant or on the vehicle's windshield. In addition, parking violations are traditionally considered minor infractions.
Once we had concluded that a change to Rule 95 should be recommended, we addressed our last concern--whether the term ''electronic'' might become outdated or be perceived as limiting the technological methods of filing. We consulted JCP about the terminology, and were advised that ''electronic filing'' is a generally accepted term of art, encompassing all types of transmissions, including telephone, satellite, mobile, cellular, magnetic tapes or disks, infrared, Wide Area Network, and Internet, and is not likely to become outdated.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Committee concluded that, as to parking citations only, it makes sense for the Criminal Rules to permit electronic filing. To accomplish this, the amendments to Rule 95 include the addition of a new paragraph (c) and Comment provision which specifically provide for the electronic filing of parking citations with district justices.
Publication Responses
The Committee received only one comment in response to the publication of this proposal. Timothy M. McVay, Staff Attorney for the Judicial Computer Project, suggested that the requirement in Rule 61 (Procedures Following Filing of Citation--Issuance of Summons) that, when a citation is filed, a copy of the citation must be served with the summons,2 could be problem in cases in which a citation is electronically transmitted, because there would be no ''hard copy'' of the citation in the district justice's office. Requiring that the district justice print out a citation in these cases would unnecessarily complicate the process, and undermine the advantages of electronic filings.
After reviewing this potential problem, the Committee agreed that, to facilitate the electronic filing of parking citations, electronically filed parking citations should be specifically exempted from the Rule 61 requirement that a copy of the citation be served with the summons. See paragraph (B).
This change, however, created an additional problem for the Committee because the summons served pursuant to Rule 61 does not include all the information that is contained in the citation. Recognizing that the information in the citation concerning, for example, the offenses charged and the date, time, and place the offense is alleged to have taken place, is necessary to provide the defendant with adequate notice of the charges, the Committee agreed that Rule 61 should be amended to require that, when a citation charging a parking offense is electronically filed, and therefore there is no ''hard copy'' of the citation to serve with the summons, the summons must include the same information that is contained in a citation. See paragraph (C).
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 96-1247. Filed for public inspection August 2, 1996, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 Please note that the Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.
2 Rule 61 only applies in a parking violation case when a defendant fails to respond to a parking ticket or parking citation that has been placed on the windshield.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
