§ 3353. Prohibitions in specified places.
(a) General rule.--Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to protect the safety
of any person or vehicle or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer
or official traffic-control device, no person shall:
(1) Stop, stand or park a vehicle:
(i) On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street
except that:
(A) A pedalcycle may be parked as provided in section 3509(b)(2) (relating to parking).
(B) Standing or parking for the purpose of loading or unloading persons or property may
be authorized by local ordinance, but the ordinance shall not authorize standing or
parking on State designated highways except during off-peak traffic-flow hours as
determined by department regulations.
(ii) On a sidewalk except that a pedalcycle may be parked as provided in section 3509(b)(2).
(iii) Within an intersection.
(iv) On a crosswalk.
(v) Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb within 30 feet of points on the curb immediately
opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless a different length is indicated by official
traffic-control devices.
(vi) Alongside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction when stopping, standing
or parking would obstruct traffic.
(vii) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure upon a highway or within a highway tunnel.
(viii) On any railroad tracks.
(ix) In the area between roadways of a divided highway, including crossovers.
(x) At any place where official signs prohibit stopping.
(2) Stand or park a vehicle:
(i) In front of a public or private driveway.
(ii) Within 15 feet of a fire hydrant.
(iii) Within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.
(iv) Within 30 feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign, yield sign or
traffic-control signal located at the site of a roadway.
(v) Within 20 feet of the driveway entrance to any fire station or, when properly sign
posted, on the side of a street opposite the entrance to any fire station within 75
feet of the entrance.
(vi) Where the vehicle would prevent the free movement of a streetcar.
(vii) On a limited access highway unless authorized by official traffic-control devices.
(viii) At any place where official signs prohibit standing.
(ix) Within 30 feet upon the approach to a sign warning of the possible presence of a person
with a disability in the vicinity of a roadway adjacent to the person's residence
or the possible presence of a person with a disability frequently traversing the roadway
at that location. This subparagraph shall not apply unless an enabling local ordinance
has been passed. The ordinance may apply generally throughout the municipality or
be site specific. The ordinance may specify the height of vehicles prohibited from
parking in these locations. The enforcement of this subparagraph requires that a sign
indicating the violation and amount of fine be posted at each applicable location.
For purposes of this section, the term "disability" shall mean a hearing impairment
or total or partial blindness.
(3) Park a vehicle:
(i) Within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing.
(ii) At any place where official signs prohibit parking.
(b) Unattended vehicle on private property.--
(1) No person shall park or leave unattended a vehicle on private property without the
consent of the owner or other person in control or possession of the property except
in the case of emergency or disablement of the vehicle, in which case the operator
shall arrange for the removal of the vehicle as soon as possible.
(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to private parking lots unless such
lots are posted to notify the public of any parking restrictions and the operator
of the vehicle violates such posted restrictions. For the purposes of this section
"private parking lot" means a parking lot open to the public or used for parking without
charge; or a parking lot used for parking with charge. The department shall define
by regulation what constitutes adequate posting for public notice.
(c) Property owner may remove vehicle.--The owner or other person in charge or possession of any property on which a vehicle
is parked or left unattended in violation of the provisions of subsection (b) may
remove or have removed the vehicle at the reasonable expense of the owner of the vehicle.
Such person who removes or has removed a vehicle left parked or unattended in violation
of the provisions of subsection (b) shall have a lien against the owner of the vehicle,
in the amount of the reasonable value of the costs of removing the vehicle plus the
costs of storage. Any city, borough, incorporated town or township may, by ordinance,
provide for rates to be charged for removal of vehicles and for municipal regulation
of authorized towing services. If storage charges are not set by the municipality,
a maximum of $25 per day may be charged for storage.
(d) Restrictions by appropriate authorities.--The department on State-designated highways and local authorities on any highway within
their boundaries may by erection of official traffic-control devices prohibit, limit
or restrict stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on any highway where engineering
and traffic studies indicate that stopping, standing or parking would constitute a
safety hazard or where the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles would unduly
interfere with the free movement of traffic.
(e) Penalty.--Any person violating any provision of this section is guilty of a summary offense
and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than $50.
(Nov. 9, 1977, P.L.226, No.69, eff. imd.; Nov. 10, 1979, P.L.460, No.95, eff. imd.;
Oct. 10, 1980, P.L.791, No.147, eff. imd.; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1278, No.152, eff. 60
days; July 2, 2004, P.L.497, No.58, eff. imd.)
2004 Amendment. Act 58 amended subsecs. (a)(2) and (e).
2002 Amendment. Act 152 amended subsec. (c).
1980 Amendment. Act 147 amended subsec. (b).
1979 Amendment. Act 95 amended subsecs. (a)(1)(i) and (c).
Cross References. Section 3353 is referred to in sections 3351, 3352, 4572, 6109 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Ansell, 143 A.3d 944 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
Commonwealth v. Ansell, 143 A.3d 944 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Appellant raises the following questions for our review: Did the trial court commit an error [of] law in finding Ross Township had complied with the provisions of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(a)(3), (d) by passing an ordinance prohibiting parking on Fairley Road without first conducting…”
Com. v. Peak, D., 230 A.3d 1220 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“Whether the impoundment of [Appellant’s] vehicle was illegal as [Appellant] was permitted, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(b), to leave his vehicle on private property until a licensed driver arrived to retrieve it? Appellant’s Brief at 3.”
United States v. Ebon P.D. Brown, 765 F.3d 278 (3rd Cir. 2014).
“All four detectives believed the Impala had been parked too close to the intersection in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353 . See App. 115, 178, 191, 210.”
Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
“The amount of time that had passed waiting for the truck’s owner to appear combined with Appellant’s suspicious behavior prompted the trooper to ask Appellant for some identification. 8 . In his brief, Appellant asserts that there was no evidence of the crime of driving on a…”
Harkovich v. Pfirrmann, 627 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 6× “From this statement, I would assume that the Majority agrees that the Harkoviches’ vehicles were towed pursuant to § 3352(c)(4), which gives the police the authority to direct the towing of any vehicle in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353. However, my colleagues then state that…”
Commonwealth v. Leet, 585 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 2× “§ 3352 (authorizing police officers to remove stopped, standing, or parked vehicles); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353 (authorizing police officers to make exceptions to parking prohibitions); 75 Pa.”
Com. v. Patterson, T., 304 A.3d 1245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(a)(2)(vii). It ruled that the Commonwealth’s reliance on a violation of that section was an “after-the-fact justification […] for the stop rather than its genesis.”
Love v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 569 A.2d 389 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990).
“Similar provisions are now found at sections 3353 and 6109 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §§ 3353 and 6109. Section 3353(d) provides: Restrictions by appropriate authorities.”
Com. v. Peak, D., 2020 Pa. Super. 76 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“Whether the impoundment of [Appellant’s] vehicle was illegal as [Appellant] was permitted, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(b), to leave his vehicle on private property until a licensed driver arrived to retrieve it? Appellant’s Brief at 3.”
Com. v. Swirsding (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “More significantly, Appellant fails to respond to the trial court’s suggestion that the inventory search was proper under Lagenella because a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353 authorized the arresting officer to tow the vehicle.”
Com. v. Carignan, G. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Appellant spends seven of the eight pages of his argument section on this claim, primarily quoting 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353 and 75 Pa.C.S. § 6109 in their entirety, to argue that the ordinance is unenforceable because Hampden Township did not conduct a traffic study or erect a…”
Com. v. Smith, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “____________________________________________ 1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353, Prohibitions in Specified Places, provides in pertinent part: (a) General Rule – Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to protect the safety of any person or vehicle or (Footnote Continued…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(a) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(a)(1)(iii) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(a)(2)(vii) — 3 cases
Com. v. Patterson, T., 304 A.3d 1245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“” 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(a)(2)(vii). It ruled that the Commonwealth’s reliance on a violation of that section was an “after-the-fact justification […] for the stop rather than its genesis.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(a)(3) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Ansell, 143 A.3d 944 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant raises the following questions for our review: Did the trial court commit an error [of] law in finding Ross Township had complied with the provisions of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(a)(3), (d) by passing an ordinance prohibiting parking on Fairley Road without first conducting…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(a)(3)(ii) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Ansell, 143 A.3d 944 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant raises the following questions for our review: Did the trial court commit an error [of] law in finding Ross Township had complied with the provisions of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(a)(3), (d) by passing an ordinance prohibiting parking on Fairley Road without first conducting…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(a)(iii) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(a)(l)(i) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
“The amount of time that had passed waiting for the truck’s owner to appear combined with Appellant’s suspicious behavior prompted the trooper to ask Appellant for some identification. 8 . In his brief, Appellant asserts that there was no evidence of the crime of driving on a…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(a)(l)(vi) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(b) — 3 cases
Com. v. Peak, D., 230 A.3d 1220 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“Whether the impoundment of [Appellant’s] vehicle was illegal as [Appellant] was permitted, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(b), to leave his vehicle on private property until a licensed driver arrived to retrieve it? Appellant’s Brief at 3.”
Com. v. Peak, D., 2020 Pa. Super. 76 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“Whether the impoundment of [Appellant’s] vehicle was illegal as [Appellant] was permitted, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353(b), to leave his vehicle on private property until a licensed driver arrived to retrieve it? Appellant’s Brief at 3.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(b)(1) — 3 cases
Com. v. Swirsding (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“More significantly, Appellant fails to respond to the trial court’s suggestion that the inventory search was proper under Lagenella because a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353 authorized the arresting officer to tow the vehicle.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(c) — 1 case
Harkovich v. Pfirrmann, 627 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
“From this statement, I would assume that the Majority agrees that the Harkoviches’ vehicles were towed pursuant to § 3352(c)(4), which gives the police the authority to direct the towing of any vehicle in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353. However, my colleagues then state that…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3353(d) — 2 cases
Com. v. Carignan, G. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“Appellant spends seven of the eight pages of his argument section on this claim, primarily quoting 75 Pa.C.S. § 3353 and 75 Pa.C.S. § 6109 in their entirety, to argue that the ordinance is unenforceable because Hampden Township did not conduct a traffic study or erect a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.