Opinion ID: 1724533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Posting of Signs.

Text: Sec. 349.13 (1), Stats., provides in part that no prohibition, limitation or restriction on parking imposed pursuant to this section is effective unless official traffic signs or markers or parking meters have been placed or erected indicating the particular prohibition, limitation or restriction. In its ruling that the city had failed to comply with this provision of the statutes, the county court noted that no signs were erected in the block or on the highway in question where this defendant parked his automobile. The city urges that sec. 349.13 (1), Stats., does not govern where there is a general restriction on overnight parking which is applicable to an entire city. The circuit court declined to pass on this issue, noting that the question is not squarely presented from the facts adduced at the trial. While the circuit court also relied on the fact that Mr. Hoffmann at all times knew of the existence of the ordinance and its application to him at the time of the admitted excessive parking without permit, we believe that the circuit court's ruling is correct because the record is vague on this issue. The police officer who ticketed the defendant's vehicle testified as follows on this question:  Q. Officer, are you familiar with the fact that the City of Milwaukee has posted various locations on the streets indicating the restrictions on night parking? A. Yes, sir.   Q. You are familiar with that? A. I have seen a number of them.  Q. Yes, and they cover the particular violation for which you issued the ticket to the defendant? A. As far as I know, yes, sir. When the defendant, Mr. Hoffmann, was called to testify, he was asked, Have you seen these signs that the officer speaks of? He responded, No, I haven't, and then added, I haven't seen the signs, I was told. The only other reference to the posting of traffic signs was contained in a statement by Mr. Hoffmann when the county court asked if there was anything else he wished to say. At that point, Mr. Hoffmann stated that he had called the police station and told them that there is no signs up there. This court has said that an ordinance is entitled to every presumption in favor of its validity. Highway 100 Auto Wreckers v. West Allis (1959), 6 Wis. (2d) 637, 646, 96 N. W. (2d) 85, 97 N. W. (2d) 423. In Dyer v. City Council of Beloit (1947), 250 Wis. 613, 616, 27 N. W. (2d) 733, we stated with reference to an ordinance of a municipal corporation: . . . every intendment is to be made in favor of the lawfulness and reasonableness of such ordinance. Accordingly, it must be presumed that sec. 101-135 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances was valid and was regularly placed into operation. The challenge to the regularity contained in this record is so scant that a finding of invalidity on the part of the trier of fact would be against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.