State of New Hampshire v. Vincent Gillespie

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0487, State of New Hampshire v. Vincent
Gillespie, the court on May 31, 2019, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Vincent Gillespie, appeals an order of the Circuit Court
(Leonard, J.) finding that he had parked his vehicle so as to obstruct a turning
lane and affirming his responsibility for the cost of towing that vehicle. See RSA
262:32, :33 (2014). The defendant contends that, because, due to snow covering
the markings on the pavement, he had no notice that he was parking in a
turning lane, he should not be penalized for doing so. We review the trial court’s
application of the law to the facts de novo. White v. State, 171 N.H. 326, 330
(2018).

RSA 262:32 provides that an officer may have a vehicle towed “if he has
reasonable grounds to believe that . . . [the] vehicle is obstructing any way.” RSA
262:32, III. RSA 262:33, I, provides that all reasonable towing charges “shall be
paid by . . . [the] person claiming [the] vehicle.”

In this case, a parking enforcement officer testified that at 6:00 p.m. on a
weekday the police department received a complaint that the defendant’s vehicle
was blocking the turning lane on a main thoroughfare and obstructing traffic.
He further testified that when he saw the vehicle, in spite of the snow covering
the arrows painted on the pavement indicating a turning lane, he knew that it
was parked in the turning lane. He attempted to contact the owner to remove the
vehicle, but the registered owner was deceased. Accordingly, the police
department arranged for the vehicle to be towed. The defendant acknowledged
that he agreed with the officer’s testimony.

RSA 262:32, III does not require that the owner or driver of a vehicle
obstructing traffic had notice that the vehicle was in a no-parking area. It simply
requires that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle was
obstructing traffic, which the defendant does not contest. RSA 262:33 does not
impose a fine upon the owner or driver of the vehicle; it simply makes him
responsible for the cost of removing the vehicle from where it was obstructing
traffic. To the extent that the defendant contends that these statutes violate his
due process rights, he does not develop this argument. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).
 Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court erred by concluding that the
defendant parked his vehicle so as to obstruct a turning lane and is responsible
for the cost of removing it.

Affirmed.

Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2