from the Circuit Court of Du Page County. No. 18-OV-422
Honorable Christine T. Cody, Judge, Presiding.
J. Piscopo, of Law Offices of Cooper, Storm & Piscopo, of
Geneva, for appellant.
brief filed for appellee.
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Zenoff and Burke concurred in the judgment
1 Following a bench trial, defendant, Peter Spelson, was
found to have violated a Village of Lisle (Village) ordinance
prohibiting parking in a handicapped parking space. He
appeals, contending that the space in question was not
properly reserved for handicapped parking. We affirm.
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 At trial, Lisle police officer Schebo testified that she
was dispatched to an Extended Stay of America to investigate
a complaint that a vehicle was improperly parked in a
handicapped space. She saw a white Cadillac registered to
defendant parked directly over a large blue and white
4 Defendant testified that he was parked on the west side of
the hotel. There was no handicapped sign directly in front of
the space. A sign hung on a pillar to the left of that space.
The space was approximately 92 inches wide. He did not notice
the blue wheelchair symbol on that date.
5 On cross-examination, defendant testified that he had lived
at the Extended Stay for about a year. He said that, over the
course of the year, he had routinely parked in one of two
parking lots adjacent to the building and was familiar with
the layout of the parking lot, including the handicapped spot
6 Defendant argued that the configuration and dimensions of
the parking space and the placement of the sign failed to
give him reasonable notice that the space was reserved for
7 The court found defendant guilty, concluding that defendant
was not credible and that the markings and signage were
sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that the spot
was designated for handicapped use. The court found that
defendant specifically knew that he had parked in a
handicapped spot. The court fined defendant $295, including
court costs. Defendant timely appeals.
8 II. ANALYSIS
9 Defendant contends that the space in which he parked did
not meet the statutory guidelines for a handicapped parking
space, and thus he could not be found guilty as a matter of
law. He further argues that the court's finding that a
reasonable person would have recognized it as a ...