Ticketed for being in a park after hours

[saizai]

Was at Russian Ridge tonight, enjoying the sunset with a couple friends. We watched the sunset; once it ended, we left. Met a ranger on the way down and got ticketed.

Cited for: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 805.3, "After official hours use prohibited". Assigned to San Mateo Southern Superior Court.

The sign on the gate says it's closed "a half hour after sunset". Time on cite 19:03; initial contact made at 18:45 (but not listed); time listed on ticket as "official sunset" 17:50. According to the US Naval Observatory for today, sunset (begins) at 17:51 and end of civil twilight is at 18:18. Nautical twilight is 18:45, astronomical 19:15. (Civil twilight = sun is 6 degrees below horizon; naut. = 12 deg, astron. = 18 deg. These don't account for terrain and such though, i.e. sunset as perceived.)

The end of sunset as we saw it was approx 18:30 (yay low light pollution). Visibility was excellent throughout; we had a clear view of the horizon above the clouds, and a near-full moon illuminating the paths.

IMO, we left immediately after sunset was over, took less than half an hour to descend, and thus were complying with the only reasonable interpretation of the sign. Also, given lighting conditions and our behavior, we were not a danger to ourselves or others, and thus it would not be reasonable nor in the interest of justice to prohibit our behavior. This would be my primary argument to the court.

So, questions:

1. What is the text of the ordinance? Where is "sunset" and "after sunset" defined?
2. What is the uniform bail schedule for SMC (and the fine for this ordinance)? (I found Santa Clara's, but not San Mateo.)
3. Can we do trial by declaration / trial de novo / etc as per traffic court?
4. Can we have this treated as one case, and would it be good for us to do so?
5. Where does MROSD get the authority to pass laws and set fines? It's not a city; it crosses multiple counties; yet it has its own cites? That's confusing.
6. How would my argument hold up in court? Anything else to include?

FWIW, I intend to contest this even if the fine is low simply on principle, since I don't believe that we were doing anything reasonably wrong.

Thanks!

- Sai


ETA: http://www.openspace.org/activities/downloads/ord04-01_8sept2004.pdf

805.3 After Official Hours Use Prohibited. No person shall enter or remain on District Lands after “Official Hours,” which are defined as the period of one-half hour after official Sunset to one-half hour before official Sunrise the following day without a written permit. The times for Sunrise and Sunset shall be determined by the U.S. Naval Observatory’s official postings for Los Altos, California.

[cheezy]

Go to court and represent yourself. Your resourcefulness is just awesome.:thumbup

[beaker]

1. What is the text of the ordinance? Where is "sunset" and "after sunset" defined?
2. What is the uniform bail schedule for SMC (and the fine for this ordinance)? (I found Santa Clara's, but not San Mateo.)
3. Can we do trial by declaration / trial de novo / etc as per traffic court?
4. Can we have this treated as one case, and would it be good for us to do so?
5. Where does MROSD get the authority to pass laws and set fines? It's not a city; it crosses multiple counties; yet it has its own cites? That's confusing.
6. How would my argument hold up in court? Anything else to include?


1. Search is your friend. http://www.openspace.org/activities/downloads/ord04-01_8sept2004.pdf

805.3 After Official Hours Use Prohibited. No person shall enter or remain on District Lands after “Official Hours,” which are defined as the period of one-half hour after official Sunset to one-half hour before official Sunrise the following day without a written permit. The times for Sunrise and Sunset shall be determined by the U.S. Naval Observatory’s official postings for Los Altos, California.

2. http://sccsuperiorcourt.org/bail/bailpdf/TrafficBailSchedule2007.pdf
$35. probably the same, it's directly referencing the MPOSD. Wait for the notice in the mail.

3. It's under a traffic schedule, but you should call the court clerk and confirm.

4. I don't believe it's your choice, especially in this matter.

5. See Section 300 on the first PDF. CA Public Resources Code 5541, 5558, 5559.

6. You have the citation time, and the USN official times. You can do the math. Your other argument doesn't apply. They don't want people in the park after sunset, so you're basically trespassing after the established hours of operation.

[Dove]

I wonder why you got the ticket? :laughing

I can only imagine how that interaction went.

[JPM]

Didn't you give him the park ranger secret handshake? :p

[T-1 Thunder]

Awesome case. You are set.

That law is intended to keep punks from partying there at night and getting drunk and using drugs, etc. I think you are clearly within the rightful use of that park under the SPIRIT of the law. Solid case.

[RolnCode3]

Solid case.
I agree. Just from the other side. You are clearly in violation of the letter of the law. Maybe only 1/2 hour, but that's irrelevant to the discussion about whether there was a violation or not. They took the time to write the cite. They will probably show.

You will lose.

Maybe the judge will dismiss the fine or something, but unless you make a sympathy plea to the judge you'll probably lose.

Some may think that there's no way a judge will hear this case - here they will. We write it, they'll listen to it.

There may be "twilight" and "dusk" and all kinds of other technical times. But there is no beginning or ending of sunset. It's just a time.

[saizai]

Didn't you give him the park ranger secret handshake? :p
I wonder why you got the ticket? :laughing

I can only imagine how that interaction went.

Interaction went very smoothly & politely IMO. No arguments, a few questions for clarification, used alpha/bravo code a couple times when giving info (which made him ask if I was a private pilot). My friends mostly STFUd other than mentioning that they thought the sign said 1h after sunset not 1/2h.

Made two mistakes - forgot to ask if we could just get a warning, and forgot to NOT correct him on the location (he wrote the wrong place initially; that would've been an easy possible dismissal-on-technicality). *shrug*

[beaker]

Made two mistakes - forgot to ask if we could just get a warning, and forgot to NOT correct him on the location (he wrote the wrong place initially; that would've been an easy possible dismissal-on-technicality). *shrug*

All that needs to be established is that you were observed to be in the park 30 minutes after sunset, if the wrong and corrected location were within bounds I wouldn't say it would be anywhere near easy.

[saizai]

All that needs to be established is that you were observed to be in the park 30 minutes after sunset, if the wrong and corrected location were within bounds I wouldn't say it would be anywhere near easy.

Except that if the wrong location is on the ticket, then it can get thrown out simply on the basis of "I wasn't at the place this ticket says".

Not all judges will buy it, but enh it works sometimes. One of the standard technicalities for traffic tickets.

Anyway, it's irrelevant here.

[berkeleycarlos]

Didn't you give him the park ranger secret handshake? :p

Man....I told you not to tell anyone about that. :laughing

[theAmazingKickstand]

Man i hope youre right with all of your research and win this bullshit case. This kind of nonsense wastes my tax money. Lie someone said the point of those rules is to keep assholes out of the park at 2 am getting plastered. Not good folk from enjoying the park.

[}Dragon{]

There may be "twilight" and "dusk" and all kinds of other technical times. But there is no beginning or ending of sunset. It's just a time.


Technically it doesn't specify which sun that has to set.

I wonder why you got the ticket? :laughing

I can only imagine how that interaction went.

Computer re-enactment:

[saizai]

Technically it doesn't specify which sun that has to set.

Computer re-enactment:

:laughing

[}Dragon{]

:laughing

Those Park Rangers are tough:thumbup You should see what the do to people littering...:rofl

[beaker]

Those Park Rangers are tough:thumbup You should see what the do to people littering...:rofl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO6rqAJ3mGc

You made me rewatch something made 11 years ago. Heh.

[saizai]

I was contacted by someone who saw this thread, having gotten the same citation.

Here's some info from him:

I called the court today, and still have a few outstanding questions, but was able to get some concrete information, some of which might be of use to you.

* we have until the dates listed on our respective courtesy notices to contest the ticket in court. If you have not received a courtesy notice, you have until the date listed on your citation to pay/contest it.

* you can't contest it in court until the ticket has made its way into their system (usually within 20 days). You have to call and ask

* If you wish to pay the fine, it's $35 for the fine and $122 of court costs, state fees, etc... (yep, you read that right, 350% overhead) coming to an equitable $157

* The specific language for the code for which the fine is administered can, apparently, be found in the vehicular code book (allegedly available at the DMV).

* The fine amount is supposed to be available from the AOC, but their bail schedule doesn't list any of the codes associated with this citation (8053 805.3 11.05.020). I'll check with the clerk later.

The "on or before this date" field below my signature says 3/17/08, 1:30pm. Same for one of my friends. The other's is unfilled; what're the consequences of that if any?

As far as I can tell, http://leginfo.ca.gov does not list anything like this; I don't know what '11.05.020' refers to, but it doesn't seem to be in the VC. Nor is 805.3 a VC.

It seems really weird to me. The Santa Clara County court lists MROSD 805.3 in its *vehicular* uniform bail schedule (:wtf); the SMC doesn't seem to have one at all (aren't they required?); the MROSD doesn't seem to me to be the kind of governmental entity that should even have the *authority* to pass ordinances with teeth.

And the 3.5x overhead of court costs vs fine is way out of line.

I'm not sure how to write up all these weirdnesses as complaints against the State, though, for our defense declaration...

[OldFatGuy]

The sign on the gate says it's closed "a half hour after sunset". Time on cite 19:03; initial contact made at 18:45 (but not listed); time listed on ticket as "official sunset" 17:50. According to the US Naval Observatory for today, sunset (begins) at 17:51...

805.3 After Official Hours Use Prohibited. No person shall enter or remain on District Lands after “Official Hours,” which are defined as the period of one-half hour after official Sunset to one-half hour before official Sunrise the following day without a written permit. The times for Sunrise and Sunset shall be determined by the U.S. Naval Observatory’s official postings for Los Altos, California.

Honestly, I can't see how you have a leg to stand on. You just admitted guilt right here. What do you plan to say to the judge?

[saizai]

Honestly, I can't see how you have a leg to stand on. You just admitted guilt right here. What do you plan to say to the judge?


sunset is not a punctual event, it's one with duration. We acted according to the only reasonable interpretation of the rule as posted - i.e. we got to the gate by half an hour *after* sunset [ended]
we were obeying the signs posted (and therefore, conviction for something not posted is entrapment)
fines and overhead are excessive
conviction is not in the interest of justice given that we were using the park for its intended purpose (i.e. enjoying the sunset, behaving ourselves)
sunrise/sunset times from specified source only specify the onset of those events, not their duration (which is dependent on local conditions, terrain, light pollution, etc), therefore the law is unconstitutionally vague
this is essentially a trespassing ordinance, thus our having been going directly to the exit when we were stopped (and before the time stated by the law) should be sufficient
(?) the MROSD is not a city, therefore doesn't have authority to pass laws like this
the bail is not listed in SCC's schedule, therefore I've been denied my rights to know what I am being charged with and the consequences thereof

[OldFatGuy]

I'm looking forward to hearing how this turns out.

[JPM]

"we were obeying the signs posted (and therefore, conviction for something not posted is entrapment)" :wtf

Driving off a cliff and running in front of a bus are not posted, are those entrapment also? :wow
Where do you come up with some of this crap?

[RolnCode3]

If I were the judge/commissioner, you'd get to about #3 and told that you better start addressing the issue or you're not going to have anything more to say.

Stick to concrete facts. If you get into a debate about "unconstitutionally vague" sunsets, you're going to get hammered.

[JPM]

If I were the judge/commissioner, you'd get to about #3 and told that you better start addressing the issue or you're not going to have anything more to say.

Stick to concrete facts. If you get into a debate about "unconstitutionally vague" sunsets, you're going to get hammered.

Reminds me of a guy in court recently that wrote "under duress" next to his name when he signed his citation that was issued by another officer. In court he tried to recite some federal code that says you can force someone into a contract under dress and so the ticket was not valid. The judge did not buy his argument. What’s even more fun is I stopped a guy last week and he tried to sign the same thing; that s when I realized it was the same idiot. He gave me the same lecture and I told him I was not selling him anything or entering into a contract. If fact he had the right to refuse to sign his signature to the citation and go to jail; or only put his signature on the citation. The only thing on the citation was his signature.

[}Dragon{]

Reminds me of a guy in court recently that wrote "under duress" next to his name when he signed his citation that was issued by another officer. In court he tried to recite some federal code that says you can force someone into a contract under dress and so the ticket was not valid. The judge did not buy his argument.

I don't mean to get too far off topic... but, pissing off a Judge/Commissioner w/ frivolous crap (one's personal agenda) will piss him or her off. :|

FWIW-Don't wear the cape to court dude. :thumbup

[beaker]

At this point, I would think you guys should be arrested for trespassing. It's not a point or something that could go on your criminal record, so you should be glad there are local ordinances in force that are cheaper to contest.

You could be a half meter in the park 30 minutes 1 second after sunset and it's citeable.

Your affirmative defenses are:
- Not in the park
- In the park within half an hour of sunset
- Have a permit

Oh, and I've sucessfully beaten 5 out of 6 citations in my life. I would highly recommend again your laundry list of speculative defenses.

[RolnCode3]

Reminds me of a guy in court recently that wrote "under duress" next to his name when he signed his citation that was issued by another officer.
I saw (wasn't my ticket) a guy open the dictionary and begin reading the definition of "reasonable". He was cited for 21658a - unsafe lane change, and wanted to argue that he was a reasonable person, thus her citation was invalid. He got shut down numerous times by the judge, and just got frustrated and mad.

Argue facts, make a plea for mercy. Those are the only 2 things I've seen work at all.

Saizai - I wish you the best of luck, but you've got to show that you weren't there, or that it wasn't a violation. You'll never convince the judge that the agency lacks the authority to codify law - they wouldn't do it if they couldn't. Their officers wouldn't write citations if they legally couldn't. Counties are also not cities, yet they have the authority to pass laws. There are many government agencies that pass criminal ordinances.

Being cited for something that is not signed is not entrapment. Of anyone, I would expect you to know that.

You have not been deprived of your rights. You know the section that you were cited for, and know it's an infraction. Just because you don't know the exact fine is irrelevant.

Sunrise and sunset are still just *a time*. There's no beginning and no end. It is just a moment. Wikipedia and other legit places make that quite clear. Dusk, twilight, and others may be nebulous, but sunset is not. It's a published time, and can be easily looked up.

Fines and fees may be excessive. That's judges discretion. You could ask for a reduction. If you go the route that the citation is invalid because of this, though, you will probably be unhappy with the result.

[mbsv]

i have no idea what the court would think, but perhaps providing evidence that sunset as seen from the top of russian ridge is significantly (at least 24 minutes given the times you listed above) later than in los altos would have some value.

[saizai]

Dear Sai,

Below is the text of MROSD Ordinance 805.3

805.3 After Official Hours Use Prohibited. No person shall enter or remain on District Lands after “Official Hours,” which are defined as the period of one-half hour after official Sunset to one-half hour before official Sunrise the following day without a written permit. The times for Sunrise and Sunset shall be determined by the U.S. Naval Observatory’s official postings for Los Altos, California.

You can find the full text of all District Ordinances on the District's website at WWW.Openspace.org. Click on "Preserves+Maps" then click on "Trail Regulations."

Attached is the current District Bail schedule. However, you should be advised that the amounts shown are not reflective of what will be on a citation, since the courts add a variety of fees to the basic bail amount. If you received a citation, the fine amount will be shown on the courtesy notice which will be mailed to you by the court, or you can contact the court directly. The court contact information is on the citation.

Gordon

Gordon C. Baillie, MBA
Management Analyst/Court Liaison/PIO

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

(650) 691-1200 (Office Line)
(650) 691-0485 (Facsimile)
gbaillie@OpenSpace.org
www.OpenSpace.org

PDF attached.

Relevant line:

Adopted 8/25
SECTION OFFENSE Bail Amount P.A. Misd./Inf FILE_DIV RPT_DOJ Add./Rev.
805.3 After official hours use prohibited $35 Y Infraction Traffic N Revision

[saizai]

FWIW-Don't wear the cape to court dude. :thumbup

Of course not; this is what the suit-and-tie is for. :twofinger

"we were obeying the signs posted (and therefore, conviction for something not posted is entrapment)" :wtf

Driving off a cliff and running in front of a bus are not posted, are those entrapment also? :wow

This is not at all the same thing.

The signs clearly are intended to advise me of the rules about this particular thing. I obeyed the rules as reasonably understood from that. If in doing so, I am violating the law *that those signs are supposed to cover*, then it's entrapment.

A parallel case would be if a parking sign said "except after 6pm, sat & sun", I parked and didn't pay after 6 or on a Saturday, and it turned out that the actual law regulating it had no such exception. This would again be entrapment, 'cause a reasonable person obeys the sign and is nonetheless "guilty" of the thing the sign is supposed to be advising him how to obey.

Your "not posted" bit is pure red herring.

... wanted to argue that he was a reasonable person, thus her citation was invalid.

That's silly. The question is not whether he's a reasonable person, but whether his actions are reasonable. Not all actions of reasonable people are reasonable. ;)

Argue facts, make a plea for mercy. Those are the only 2 things I've seen work at all.

FWIW almost all the points I listed are based on the "in the interest of justice" leeway the judge has. I.e. given that I was behaving reasonably, I ought not be punished.

You'll never convince the judge that the agency lacks the authority to codify law - they wouldn't do it if they couldn't.

You'll have to excuse me for not believing that a priori. Governments do illegal things plenty; that's what the courts are for, after all. If they never did anything illegal, then we wouldn't have judges overturning laws on a regular basis, m?

In any case, I listed that point as questionable, since I don't (yet) know where MROSD gets its authority.

Being cited for something that is not signed is not entrapment. Of anyone, I would expect you to know that.

That's not what I argued. I argued that it *is* signed, I obeyed the sign, and it is not my fault if doing so ("reasonable" standard applies here) makes me still violate the underlying law.

Just because you don't know the exact fine is irrelevant.

I would disagree with that. Knowing the fine is part of knowing the charges you are up against and thus making decisions about how to handle the case.

Sunrise and sunset are still just *a time*. There's no beginning and no end. It is just a moment. Wikipedia and other legit places make that quite clear. Dusk, twilight, and others may be nebulous, but sunset is not. It's a published time, and can be easily looked up.

Their *beginnings* are certainly published and easily looked up, and defined as "sun is at zero degrees to horizon".

But that does not mean that they are punctual *events*.

E.g. the sentence "we watched the sunset for 20 minutes after sunset" doesn't make sense - you can't watch something after it's finished. Vs. "we watched the sunset for 20 minutes until it ended, after which we left" does make sense. Thus it's an event with duration.

Fines and fees may be excessive. That's judges discretion. You could ask for a reduction. If you go the route that the citation is invalid because of this, though, you will probably be unhappy with the result.

Excessiveness can factor into the constitutionality of a law. 8th amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

And it's not the only point n which I'm arguing that I should be found not guilty, charges dismissed, or fines reduced. That's why there are multiple arguments; they get at different aspects. This one gets at just the excessiveness of the fines.

[5MARY4]

Saizai:

Based solely on your side of the story, I agree with you in principle. I would agree that the spirit of the law here is to prevent criminal activity in the park during darkness. That should be your ONLY defense. I have spent more hours than I care to remember in traffic court. I watched a guy bring in a Bible and a copy of the Magna Carta as part of his defense. The truth is,, judges don't give a #$%^ about that stuff and quite honestly they tune you out, or worse, view you as an idiot. Judges side with the offender more often times than not when the offender can present a calm, well thought out defense of their actions. In this case I believe you have that opportunity. If you go sideways with trying to prove there is no legal basis for this law,, you will get hosed. If you are truly concerned about this aspect,, bring it up after your case,, because bringing it up during your trial will do nothing but hurt you. This will be the response of the judge if you decide to go that route :rolleyes Trust me on this one. Good luck. If you approach this right, I believe you will prevail.

[beaker]

In any case, I listed that point as questionable, since I don't (yet) know where MROSD gets its authority.

Go back and read my first response. It has the proper California Code reference.

I'm a board member of a HOA. I have the authority to fine, tow cars, and lien units based on the actions of a homeowner and/or his/her guests. I'm not a city or county, but it's in the Code.

If you have to present a defense in court, I keep it very very simple. We watched the sunset, we proceeded to the exit without delay. Take an approach that you felt that your actions weren't criminal, similar to being in a mall or parking lot after stores have closed and you were not intending to loiter or trespass, and you might get some slack or a pass.

In the end, maybe the ranger won't show and you won't get to cite the Constitution.

[Fastfar]

Subpoena the radio log which will specify the exact time the LEO made the stop...you can argue if you had not been stopped you would have exited the area before the statutory time of sunset as stated in the law...the time it took to write you was what kept you in that place after or very close to statutory sunset...it doesn't matter how dark it was, could have been cloudy, that does not change the legal definition of "sunset" which as you noted is spelled out specifically... :2cents

Good Luck, you may need some, but I would fight it just for drill...

To subpoena the records, you can probably talk to the Court Clerk, get the forms and complete and mail/deliver them (not sure, the Clerk will know how)

If the records don't show by the trial date, case dismissed...(in my county anyway)

[Dove]

I'm looking forward to hearing how this turns out.

Not very hard to predict my friend.

[masameet]

... The signs clearly are intended to advise me of the rules about this particular thing. I obeyed the rules as reasonably understood from that. If in doing so, I am violating the law *that those signs are supposed to cover*, then it's entrapment.



There's an old saying that ignorance is no defense.

There are time tables available online that list when the tide comes in and goes out, when the moon and the sun rise and set, and so on. You can also check the Weather Channel or NOAA for these data, as well as any local news publication Any traffic judge worth his or her salt will also question you regarding the availability of these data. Believe it or not, billions of people rely on these time tables to go about their daily business.

Why can't you admit that your knowledge regarding when sunset begins is simply limited?

[nweaver]

As a layman, the only argument that MIGHT even work is that effective sunset from the ridge is > 18:15 (so 20 MINUTES later than official sunset). But that is not going to work because the definition is when the sun bips below the horizon, not when light stops, and you weren't on top of a 10,000 foot volcano.

You came down at TWILIGHT, not SUNSET. Theres a difference. Pay the fine.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php

[motorman4life]

I agree with 5Mary4 and a couple of others, you do have a good case.

When you go to court, the officer will make their case and you will have an opportunity to ask questions first.

Prepare the questions in advance. Cross them off as the officer/ranger goes through their spiel, if they cover the answer in their presentation.
Some may include; what time did you first see me/us? What direction were we heading? Did it appear we were loitering or departing at that time? If you had not detained us at ____(time), what time could you have reasonably expected we would have a) been past the posted sign/gate and/or b) been back to our vehicle(s) to leave the premises? Does it seem reasonable to you that since we were there to WATCH the sun set and we left directly after the sun set, that we would have presumed that since it would not take us more than 30 minutes to depart, that we would never have anticipated or reasonably known we would be in violation of the posted sign?

After he answers any of your pertinent questions, then you can give your testimony. You should have it laid out in an outline form and cover your case at length. You may want to appeal to a "spirit of the law" interpretation, expressing sympathy for the plight of rangers that have to deal with hooligans and loitering teens that are disrespectful to the park premises after hours. Close with a request (or a motion, if you want to be formal about it) that the citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

[RolnCode3]

You'll have to excuse me for not believing that a priori. Governments do illegal things plenty; that's what the courts are for, after all. If they never did anything illegal, then we wouldn't have judges overturning laws on a regular basis, m?
Do you honestly believe there's even the slightest chance they have no authority to pass laws or issue citations - yet they do it anyways? I'll grant the gov't does not always do legit things. But this is an open space district - not the CIA. Either way, my point was that you're not going to sort that out in traffic court.

I would disagree with that. Knowing the fine is part of knowing the charges you are up against and thus making decisions about how to handle the case.
Then figure it out. It's on you at this point. Call the court.


Their *beginnings* are certainly published and easily looked up, and defined as "sun is at zero degrees to horizon".

But that does not mean that they are punctual *events*.Good luck.


E.g. the sentence "we watched the sunset for 20 minutes after sunset" doesn't make sense - you can't watch something after it's finished. Vs. "we watched the sunset for 20 minutes until it ended, after which we left" does make sense. Thus it's an event with duration.LOL.



Excessiveness can factor into the constitutionality of a law. 8th amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
LOL again. If the fine was $3K or something then I'd agree. A fine in the area of 100-200 bucks is hardly excessive. Give it a shot.

Your best bet is to go with the higher elevation thus different sunset time. I still think you're going to lose that actual argument. Maybe you'll get leniency (or the judge will agree that you were a legit user and thus should get leniencey). I've issued these citations and had other issue these as well. Never seen anyone successfully contest because they're just too easy to prove.

[saizai]

Why can't you admit that your knowledge regarding when sunset begins is simply limited?

You evidently misunderstood me.

I'm not arguing that the times given by the naval observatory for the *beginning* of sunset are wrong. I'm simply arguing that those are beginning times of an event that has duration.

And in normal English, when you say e.g. "I'll come home half an hour after the game", you don't mean that you're gonna be there as the second quarter starts. ;)

Some may include; what time did you first see me/us? What direction were we heading? Did it appear we were loitering or departing at that time? If you had not detained us at ____(time), what time could you have reasonably expected we would have a) been past the posted sign/gate and/or b) been back to our vehicle(s) to leave the premises? Does it seem reasonable to you that since we were there to WATCH the sun set and we left directly after the sun set, that we would have presumed that since it would not take us more than 30 minutes to depart, that we would never have anticipated or reasonably known we would be in violation of the posted sign?

That's some pretty good advice. Tactfully presented. :thumbup

Question, though: my guess is that it's worthwhile (as in traffic cases, which evidently this is for whatever reason) to do a trial by declaration. For that, I wouldn't get to do this sort of cross-examination - I'd just have to lay out the argument all at once.

Do you have a suggestion for how to better do this?

Do you honestly believe there's even the slightest chance they have no authority to pass laws or issue citations - yet they do it anyways?

To lump this in with our HOA boardmember's comment - Yes.

As an example, I know people whose local HOAs have tried to force them to do various things that was beyond their (solely contractual, not governmental) authority. This resulted in a civil dispute which they won.

As another example, look up "snitch tickets".

So I don't assume that either a) everyone who claims to have authority, does; nor b) everyone who has authority, uses it within its limits.

Remember, this point was made with me not knowing the derivation of the MROSD's authority (which would have to descend from the state government).

It's tangential at this point, anyway...

LOL again. If the fine was $3K or something then I'd agree. A fine in the area of 100-200 bucks is hardly excessive. Give it a shot.

$100-200 is excessive punishment for someone enjoying the wilderness as it is intended. Especially when the fine set by the MROSD was $35.

5x a reasonable punishment is generally unreasonable. MROSD thought a reasonable punisment is $35 (though I disagree that I should pay anything); therefore the $100-200 total is 8th-amendment excessive.

Your best bet is to go with the higher elevation thus different sunset time. I still think you're going to lose that actual argument.

I'll probably try that, but it seems a minor point to me, because I'm not mostly contesting that the *beginning* of sunset was later, but rather that "30 minutes after sunset" cannot be before sunset ends.


Fastfar - Thanks for the suggestion. Is it worth doing this as part of the trial by declaration, or just as discovery prior to the trial de novo (if any)?

[westie]

Dude, in laymens terms its called "Malum Prohibitum." Its wrong simply because it is. Like running a stop sign or rear ending someone. Judge looks at it and decision is done. Anything stated after that is an excuse unless you come with a truckload of concrete and I don't see it. Well, a little. 80/20.

[masameet]

I didn't misunderstand you. I think you're simply being pedantic by hiding behind words and notions that have nothing to do with the circumstances of your ticket.

[Razel]

According to the US Naval Observatory for today, sunset (begins) at 17:51 and end of civil twilight is at 18:18. Nautical twilight is 18:45, astronomical 19:15. (Civil twilight = sun is 6 degrees below horizon; naut. = 12 deg, astron. = 18 deg. These don't account for terrain and such though, i.e. sunset as perceived.)

Thanks!

- Sai


805.3 After Official Hours Use Prohibited. No person shall enter or remain on District Lands after “Official Hours,” which are defined as the period of one-half hour after official Sunset to one-half hour before official Sunrise the following day without a written permit. The times for Sunrise and Sunset shall be determined by the U.S. Naval Observatory’s official postings for Los Altos, California.
According to the code, the time is based on USNO for Los Altos. Nowhere can I find the phrase "sunset begins".

U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department


Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Los Altos, Santa Clara County, California (longitude W122.1, latitude N37.4):

Wednesday
20 February 2008 Pacific Standard Time

SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:26 a.m.
Sunrise 6:52 a.m.
Sun transit 12:22 p.m.
Sunset 5:53 p.m.
End civil twilight 6:19 p.m.

MOON
Moonrise 4:37 p.m. on preceding day
Moon transit 11:44 p.m. on preceding day
Moonset 6:39 a.m.
Moonrise 5:45 p.m.
Moonset 7:05 a.m. on following day

Full Moon on 20 February 2008 at 7:31 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.


I think you'll need some official source that says sunset is not a moment in time, but spans a period of time between "17:51" and "X" for the day you were cited. 805.3 appears to be written based on the format and information the USNO provided the times with.

[}Dragon{]

According to the code, the time is based on USNO for Los Altos. Nowhere can I find the phrase "sunset begins".
.


Technically Ray, sunset begins just after noon. :laughing

[Razel]

Technically Ray, sunset begins just after noon. :laughing
Cite? :twofinger

[arnoha]

E.g. the sentence "we watched the sunset for 20 minutes after sunset" doesn't make sense - you can't watch something after it's finished. Vs. "we watched the sunset for 20 minutes until it ended, after which we left" does make sense. Thus it's an event with duration.


The sentence doesn't make sense because it's grammatically incorrect. If I write it grammatically, it makes perfect sense: "We watched the sun set for 20 minutes after sunset." You can't watch sunset any more than you can watch 3 o'clock. But you can watch the sun set. You can start watching it set from sometime near noon...which is long before sunset.

[masameet]

Actually the sun never technically sets. (And if it did, we'd have no sun.)

What truly happens is the earth revolves around its axis (as it spins in its rotational orbit around the sun). At the point we call sunset, our location on earth is turning away from the sun.

[cardinal03]

:laughing

[}Dragon{]

"The setting sun, and music at the close, As the last taste of sweets, is sweetest last, Writ in remembrance more than things long past. " -Ranger Billy Shakespeare

I guess the you received a "writ"! :banana

[JPM]

This is not at all the same thing.

The signs clearly are intended to advise me of the rules about this particular thing. I obeyed the rules as reasonably understood from that. If in doing so, I am violating the law *that those signs are supposed to cover*, then it's entrapment.

A parallel case would be if a parking sign said "except after 6pm, sat & sun", I parked and didn't pay after 6 or on a Saturday, and it turned out that the actual law regulating it had no such exception. This would again be entrapment, 'cause a reasonable person obeys the sign and is nonetheless "guilty" of the thing the sign is supposed to be advising him how to obey.

Your "not posted" bit is pure red herring.





Really? I know the examples I posted were for a fun factor but explain how they get murder convictions? I have never see a "no murder or homicide Zone" sign. Can’t be convicted if it’s no posted, entrapment. :wtf :rolleyes

If that’s all it takes they better start putting them up in Oakland and Richmond quick! "no homicide here to corner":laughing

[saizai]

The sentence doesn't make sense because it's grammatically incorrect. If I write it grammatically, it makes perfect sense: "We watched the sun set for 20 minutes after sunset." You can't watch sunset any more than you can watch 3 o'clock. But you can watch the sun set. You can start watching it set from sometime near noon...which is long before sunset.

To me, your sentence is still ungrammatical.

[saizai]

Really? I know the examples I posted were for a fun factor but explain how they get murder convictions? I have never see a "no murder or homicide Zone" sign. Can’t be convicted if it’s no posted, entrapment. :wtf :rolleyes

If that’s all it takes they better start putting them up in Oakland and Richmond quick! "no homicide here to corner":laughing

Except that again you're misunderstanding what I said in the same way.

Option 1 (what you think I mean): something doesn't have signs. Reasonable person standard applies for what is a Bad Thing that one shouldn't do. No entrapment.

Option 2 (what I actually mean): something does have signs. Reasonable person would trust the sign to describe what they are required to do or not do, for the scope of the sign. Entrapment if the sign implies or states it's OK to do something when it's not - because of that trust.

In this case, there's a sign telling me when I'm not allowed in the park. Thus, I trust the sign. And my behavior followed a reasonable interpretation of it.

Even on #1, I don't think it's reasonable to assume (if no sign is posted) that such a park is closed after sunset. Many parks aren't (or they wouldn't be able to have camping), this one is part of the big bay-encircling trail that people are encouraged to walk for days, and the whole point of that area is to enjoy the wilderness and lack of light pollution. Which also includes enjoying the nightime sky - something one can't easily do near the bay area *other* than in a preserve in the hills.

[RolnCode3]

The sign on the gate says it's closed "a half hour after sunset".
This is the only sign I've been able to find you mentioning. Is there another one?

If this is it, I don't understand your entrapment argument. Unless you're trying to argue three arguments down the road - that sunset is this vague part of the day (not a specific time) and then work backwards to this...

[Razel]

This is the only sign I've been able to find you mentioning. Is there another one?

If this is it, I don't understand your entrapment argument. Unless you're trying to argue three arguments down the road - that sunset is this vague part of the day (not a specific time) and then work backwards to this...
I think that's what's happening...
The end of sunset as we saw it was approx 18:30
USNO says 17:51, but he reasonably claims sunset ended approximately at 18:30, (and redefining what most people understand what sunset is). That "sunset" at 18:30 has no measurable reference other than what he interpreted it to be. So, now that the vagueness has been established, this invalidates the sign, making it entrapment.

[}Dragon{]

If that’s all it takes they better start putting them up in Oakland and Richmond quick! "no homicide here to corner":laughing


Lake Meritt?:

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w208/liberry/notargetshooting.jpg

[beaker]

entrapment

You do not understand the legal definition of entrapment.

Entrapment is:

- You commit a crime
- A LEO was involved
- The LEO coerced you into committing a crime you would not have done otherwise.

[berkeleycarlos]

"I told you..I thought the cop was a prostitute"
Homer J Simpson.

[saizai]

- You commit a crime

Accused of one.

- A LEO was involved

The MROSD is, via the sign.

- The LEO coerced you into committing a crime you would not have done otherwise.

Correct, since I trusted the sign to tell me what to do / not do, and had I known that what I was doing there was against the rules I wouldn't have done so.

AFAIK entrapment doesn't require some specific LEO acting in person; it can be a systemic effect also.

[arnoha]

To me, your sentence is still ungrammatical.

Fortunately for all involved, what is and is not grammatical to you makes no difference to the English language. Unless you can show me where I made a mistake, I'm gonna assume you're just trolling.

[T-1 Thunder]

To summarize and eliminate all confusion: Sai - were you or were you not in the park 30 minutes AFTER sunset?

A simple yes or no would end everything in one clean answer.

[berkeleycarlos]

What fun would BARF be with "clean" answers? :teeth

To summarize and eliminate all confusion: Sai - were you or were you not in the park 30 minutes AFTER sunset?

A simple yes or no would end everything in one clean answer.

[T-1 Thunder]

What fun would BARF be with "clean" answers? :teeth

No kidding, you see me try and pull teeth from that NSXNick, I mean Andrew, guy wanting gear in general?:rofl

[krongsak]

I agree with 5Mary4 and a couple of others, you do have a good case.

When you go to [...] premises after hours. Close with a request (or a motion, if you want to be formal about it) that the citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.


That is great, educational and constructive feedback IMO

Thanks

[Anti-Hero]

*sigh*zai

[andrewkutches]

The question is how much is the ticket? Is it really worth losing a days pay to go and argue with a judge? Be prepared to lose or maybe only get the fine reduced. But you may not have to pay the ticket. But just think about your time and if that is worth something.

[}Dragon{]

The question is how much is the ticket? .

3,500 of these bad boys: http://www.coinflation.com/penny5.gif


Sai- if you were in the park 30 mins. after the time the USNO lists as sunset, just pay the fine. If you'd like to challenge the legal system and argue what a sunset is, what entrapment is and if even the sun exists, you are wasting both your time and our tax dollars.

Now if I was a fly on the wall with the interaction between you and the Ranger, WTF happened? Did your positive attitude help write the citation?

[Dove]

Now if I was a fly on the wall with the interaction between you and the Ranger, WTF happened? Did your positive attitude help write the citation?

I called that one a few pages ago. A decent attitude and a reasonable interaction would have left you without a ticket. Seems quite petty, I feel there is more to this story.

I wouldn't have gotten the same ticket you did in the same situation, put it that way. I would have gotten the ticket when I was a bit younger though, I probably would have ran my mouth...:2cents

[saizai]

To summarize and eliminate all confusion: Sai - were you or were you not in the park 30 minutes AFTER sunset?

A simple yes or no would end everything in one clean answer.

No. We left immediately after sunset ended.

[saizai]

3,500 of these bad boys: http://www.coinflation.com/penny5.gif

You forgot 5x that in "fees", which IMO is part of the fine.

Now if I was a fly on the wall with the interaction between you and the Ranger, WTF happened? Did your positive attitude help write the citation?

Not much happened. He stopped us, I said hello, he ran ID, showed me the time table and his mini-codebook, the end. I didn't argue over anything (there's no point doing so unless you're in court), just asked a couple short clarifying questions. I think it went perfectly smoothly & politely, and I have no issue at all with the rangers involved.

If you think I'm one of those people who engages in this kind of a long conversation at a stop, you're wrong. That's simply an inappropriate situation for debate; at a stop, the only relevant things are to find out what the officer thinks the situation is, whether they are acting within their authority as understood by their commander, and how to make it go as smoothly as possible.

Same reason I never ever argue with customer service reps about company policy. They simply don't have the authority to act outside of the script they're given. That's what escalation is for (for CSRs, to a supervisor of 'resolutions specialist'; for cops, to a judge).

[}Dragon{]

You forgot 5x that in "fees", which IMO is part of the fine.



Not much happened. He stopped us, I said hello, he ran ID, showed me the time table and his mini-codebook, the end. I didn't argue over anything (there's no point doing so unless you're in court), just asked a couple short clarifying questions. I think it went perfectly smoothly & politely, and I have no issue at all with the rangers involved.

If you think I'm one of those people who engages in this kind of a long conversation at a stop, you're wrong. That's simply an inappropriate situation for debate; at a stop, the only relevant things are to find out what the officer thinks the situation is, whether they are acting within their authority as understood by their commander, and how to make it go as smoothly as possible.

Same reason I never ever argue with customer service reps about company policy. They simply don't have the authority to act outside of the script they're given. That's what escalation is for (for CSRs, to a supervisor of 'resolutions specialist'; for cops, to a judge).

So it's simple, like it was posted above, if he or she ran you on the radio- all radio traffic is logged and recorded.

If sunset was at 5PM and you were in the park in their district at 5:31PM, it's a violation.

As far as the "fees" go, they are not criminal penalties, but civil penalties for one's actions. If you were stopped and arrested for a DUI, an agency has the right to bill you for the associated costs of the investigation, transportation, booking and admin fees. So if you fight a $35 ticket and you loose- you pay.

[motorman4life]

...since I trusted the sign to tell me what to do / not do, and had I known that what I was doing there was against the rules I wouldn't have done so.

AFAIK entrapment doesn't require some specific LEO acting in person; it can be a systemic effect also.

As for this situation being reasonably interpreted as entrapment, I think you are way off base.

It appears, unless I am reading your posts wrong, that you were contacted by the Ranger, on the wrong side of a gate approximately 1 hour and 4 minutes after it was prohibited to be there.
"Time on cite 19:03; initial contact made at 18:45 (but not listed); time listed on ticket as "official sunset" 17:50. According to the US Naval Observatory for today, sunset (begins) at 17:51 "

Now, I see where you could see sunset as a process and not a moment in time. I could also see where it would be reasonable to assume that a sign that restricts access 1/2 hour after sunset would imply that the rules accomodated access to the area to OBSERVE the process of the sun setting and give adequate time to safely make egress from the area.

In order for you to interpret the sign as entrapment, you would have to say the sign encouraged you to be in violation of the law. Sorry, not even close AFAIAC.

I think you should quit trying to avoid responsibility and chalk this up to what it was... a misunderstanding. "Your Honor, this is really a misunderstanding. I thought I could watch the sunset and leave. Since it wasn't dark and I reasonably intended to be back to my car within a 1/2 hour (had I not been detained by the Ranger while enroute back), I saw no indication that I was required to be out of the area BEFORE the sun set, which is apparently how the Ranger interpreted the ordinance. I understand why you want people out of the area before dark and I would not have been there had it been apparent to me that one half hour after sunset actually meant a specific time on a clock that I really had no way of knowing specifically or referencing, at the time."

[Rambeezi]

Get ready for thread derailment....

Didn't you also argue for a friend who got cited for tresspassing or not leaving an area when told by a LEO (or something like that)? How did that case turn out? If that was you that is...if not, nevermind. :p

[saizai]

As far as the "fees" go, they are not criminal penalties, but civil penalties for one's actions. If you were stopped and arrested for a DUI, an agency has the right to bill you for the associated costs of the investigation, transportation, booking and admin fees. So if you fight a $35 ticket and you loose- you pay.

Sure. But the effective fine is still $150 or so. And that is what should be considered when asking whether the fine is "excessive" as per 8th amendment (or just plain common sense).

Sunrise and sunset conventionally refer to the times when the upper edge of the disk of the Sun is on the horizon, considered unobstructed relative to the location of interest. Atmospheric conditions are assumed to be average, and the location is in a level region on the Earth's surface.

Technical Definitions and Computational Details

Sunrise and sunset. For computational purposes, sunrise or sunset is defined to occur when the geometric zenith distance of center of the Sun is 90.8333 degrees. That is, the center of the Sun is geometrically 50 arcminutes below a horizontal plane. For an observer at sea level with a level, unobstructed horizon, under average atmospheric conditions, the upper limb of the Sun will then appear to be tangent to the horizon. The 50-arcminute geometric depression of the Sun's center used for the computations is obtained by adding the average apparent radius of the Sun (16 arcminutes) to the average amount of atmospheric refraction at the horizon (34 arcminutes).

Accuracy of rise/set computations. The times of rise and set phenomena cannot be precisely computed, because, in practice, the actual times depend on unpredictable atmospheric conditions that affect the amount of refraction at the horizon. Thus, even under ideal conditions (e.g., a clear sky at sea) the times computed for rise or set may be in error by a minute or more. Local topography (e.g., mountains on the horizon) and the height of the observer can affect the times of rise or set even more. It is not practical to attempt to include such effects in routine rise/set computations.

The bolded parts are why the sunset where we were is not the same as the sunset in Los Altos, which is what the ordinance references. The sign however doesn't say "park is closed 30 minutes after the sun crosses the horizon in Los Altos", nor would any reasonable person think it did. The USNO does not include any real world effects in their computations; they pretend that the earth is flat and clear.

And that's all just for the middle of the event that normal ("reasonable") people call "sunset" and the beginning of what astronomers call "twilight". End of twilight = end of sunset in normal meaning.

Argument by simple analogy:
If you tell the wife that you'll be home by 30 minutes after the football game, the football game is 8-10, and you come home at 10:20, it's okay.
If the signs says you should be out by 30 minutes after sunset, the sunset is 5:00-6:20, and you leave by 6:45, it should be okay too.


FWIW, I think VC 38335 (headlights on half hour after sunset / before sunrise) is pretty analogous. The only definition for "sunset" in the VC is implied in VC 280:

"280. "Darkness" is any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise and any other time when visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet."

I.e. it's implied that a half hour after sunset, there should be <1kft visibility. Which is correct by my interpretation.

[saizai]

Didn't you also argue for a friend who got cited for tresspassing or not leaving an area when told by a LEO (or something like that)? How did that case turn out? If that was you that is...if not, nevermind. :p

I didn't "argue for", I asked about. I actually think he was wrong, but he raised some issues that I was interested in and I felt he could use some advice.

As for how it turned out, I never heard back, and he kinda dropped off the 'net for whatever reason. See http://doubleg.livejournal.com/ if you care.

I don't agree with his politics or religious beliefs, and only about half of his interpretation of the law.

[Rambeezi]

Cool. The way you debated that issue kinda rung a bell when I started reading this one that's why I asked. :p Good luck. Please update us on the verdict whenever that happens. :cool

[motorman4life]

Sure. But the effective fine is still $150 or so. And that is what should be considered when asking whether the fine is "excessive" as per 8th amendment (or just plain common sense).

FWIW, I think VC 38335 (headlights on half hour after sunset / before sunrise) is pretty analogous. The only definition for "sunset" in the VC is implied in VC 280:

"280. "Darkness" is any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise and any other time when visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet."

I.e. it's implied that a half hour after sunset, there should be <1k ft visibility. Which is correct by my interpretation.
I think arguing the fine is excessive, in court, would only harm your case and harden or turn the trier of fact against you. Try not to derail your defense for the sake of principle.

I think it would have been prefectly reasonable for you to have adopted the CVC definition (or inference) of "sunset" in this case. Really, this is what I was getting at in my previous posts. If the law sees darkness as 1/2 hour AFTER sunset to 1/2 hour BEFORE sunrise.. and it was not dark when you were stopped.. then you should reasonably ask for the benefit of the doubt.

If it was not dark when you were stopped, try to ask a couple of questions of the Ranger to establish this fact before you begin your defense. Once you have him nailed down as to the fact that it was not dark at the time (no flashlight used to write the ticket?), you may want to ask the Ranger if he is familiar with section 280 of the CVC.. you may even bring a copy of the code and ask him to reference it to "refresh his memory."

[pshelton]

You make a lot of interesting and well reasoned arguments, but I still predict you'll lose. Why? You were in the park 1/2 hour after sunset.

Some of your arguments remind me of tax protestors. There's a lot of people who argue they don't have to pay income taxes because 1. the 16th amendment was never ratified by some state legislature, or 2. they are not citizens of the United States, they are citizens of the Republic of Texas, or 3. income does not equal wages or such, or 4. whatever. Ask Wesley Snipes how that worked out ($17 million worth of taxes, interest and penalties).

[B-Cuz]

To summarize and eliminate all confusion: Sai - were you or were you not in the park 30 minutes AFTER sunset?

A simple yes or no would end everything in one clean answer.


No. We left immediately after sunset ended.

I believe a better question would be: Were you or were you not still on park grounds 30minutes after the sunset?

You don't really have to answer if you don't want, either way I'm scrambling around for the remote so I can fast forward this one...:twofinger

[T-1 Thunder]

Drop the whole entrapment angle, focus on your timeline as being out within 30 minutes after sunset. Keep it simple, direct, and straight to the point. Lock on like a pitbull and stay focused.

[motorman4life]

Drop the whole entrapment angle, focus on your timeline as being out within 30 minutes after sunset. Keep it simple, direct, and straight to the point. Lock on like a pitbull and stay focused.

Is there an echo in here? :laughing

[saizai]

I think arguing the fine is excessive, in court, would only harm your case and harden or turn the trier of fact against you. Try not to derail your defense for the sake of principle.

Surely this is relevant to the fallback argument (in case I can't get it dismissed or found not guilty) of "the fines should be reduced"?

I think it would have been prefectly reasonable for you to have adopted the CVC definition (or inference) of "sunset" in this case. Really, this is what I was getting at in my previous posts. If the law sees darkness as 1/2 hour AFTER sunset to 1/2 hour BEFORE sunrise.. and it was not dark when you were stopped.. then you should reasonably ask for the benefit of the doubt.

When we were stopped, it had just started to be dark. Flashlight used. I could see him without the flashlight, though, as soon as we rounded the bend in the path.

Chaotic8: We left immediately after sunset ended. It then took us ~15 minutes to get to the park exit. So yes, we were out within 30 minutes after sunset.

[masameet]

Surely this is relevant to the fallback argument (in case I can't get it dismissed or found not guilty) of "the fines should be reduced"?

When we were stopped, it had just started to be dark. Flashlight used. I could see him without the flashlight, though, as soon as we rounded the bend in the path.


And the judge will ask the ranger for his timetable book, read it, then say aloud, "Sunset here says 5:50 p.m. and civil twilight at 6:18. You were ticketed at 7:03 p.m. I'd say you were in the park more than 30 minutes after sunset, Mr. Saizai. So ... Guilty."

And if you mention in court that you used a flashlight to brighten your path, you will be admitting, as you are here, that you were in the dark in the park that night.

[saizai]

And if you mention in court that you used a flashlight to brighten your path, you will be admitting, as you are here, that you were in the dark in the park that night.

Flashlight was used by the ranger, not by us. It was plenty bright enough for us. Sorry if that was unclear.

[scalvert]

My advise: re-read this thread from the beginning reading only your posts and MM4L's. Follow his advise and hope for the best. Laid out as he says your case seems very solid and very court friendly. It seems you were probably in violation of the letter of the law, that the letter of the law wasn't clear from the sign or knowledge you should reasonable be expected to have, and that if you lose you're kinda getting screwed. From the simple case MM4L laid out the judge will be able to see that if he wants to, and if he doesn't want to see it none of the other angles you proposed will help.

Welcome to the Big City, when we can say with certainty that all the killers on death row are ACTUALLY guilty I'll care about your very minor loss here.

[masameet]

If the ranger mentions that he found you and your friends by flashlight, that's not going to help your argument that it was still bright enough for you.

[beaker]

Judge Judy time!

[saizai]

Question re fines:

If we were to pay it off now, no trial, would it be $35 or the combined $160? Ditto, if we lost at trial by declaration and ended there; ditto if we lost at trial proper.

[arnoha]

My advise: re-read this thread from the beginning reading only your posts and MM4L's. Follow his advise and hope for the best. Laid out as he says your case seems very solid and very court friendly. It seems you were probably in violation of the letter of the law, that the letter of the law wasn't clear from the sign or knowledge you should reasonable be expected to have, and that if you lose you're kinda getting screwed. From the simple case MM4L laid out the judge will be able to see that if he wants to, and if he doesn't want to see it none of the other angles you proposed will help.

Welcome to the Big City, when we can say with certainty that all the killers on death row are ACTUALLY guilty I'll care about your very minor loss here.

He hasn't listened to MM4L, hasn't listened to everyone else in the thread, whose voices have been in unison, what makes you think he'd listen to you? In this thread and every other thread I've ever seen a post by this fellow, it's been argumentative, and it's been inflexible. He's not asking for advice. He's asking for an argument here and every other thread with his handle in it.

[Dove]

He hasn't listened to MM4L, hasn't listened to everyone else in the thread, whose voices have been in unison, what makes you think he'd listen to you? In this thread and every other thread I've ever seen a post by this fellow, it's been argumentative, and it's been inflexible. He's not asking for advice. He's asking for an argument here and every other thread with his handle in it.

Deep.

I think you should go to court, lose...then come to BARF and tell us all how you made the ranger look stupid and how the judge totally loved what you said and that you won and stuff. :)

[}Dragon{]

I think you should go to court, lose...then come to BARF and tell us all how you made the ranger look stupid and how the judge totally loved what you said and that you won cash & prizes. :banana :)



Fixed^^^ :thumbup

[saizai]

He hasn't listened to MM4L, hasn't listened to everyone else in the thread, whose voices have been in unison, what makes you think he'd listen to you? In this thread and every other thread I've ever seen a post by this fellow, it's been argumentative, and it's been inflexible. He's not asking for advice. He's asking for an argument here and every other thread with his handle in it.

I think you missed the parts where I agreed repeatedly with MM4L and thanked him for his advice - which I've nearly always done.

Yes, I'm asking for advice. That doesn't mean I'll agree with all of it, and that doesn't mean I'm not going to have my own ideas. The point of posting 'em here is to get feedback on them (some of it more useful than others - MM4L being at the top of the list per usual).

I think you mistake my style of figuring out how things work for argument in the combative sense. It's not intended that way, at least.

[T-1 Thunder]

Deep.

I think you should go to court, lose...then come to BARF and tell us all how you made the ranger look stupid and how the judge totally loved what you said and that you won and stuff. :)

Do it. And here's a whole new stragedy for you(it worked for me!):
When the judge asks your plea - say "Guilty as sin, sir!"

If you make him smile, like mine did - you may get half off, like I did. :thumbup

PS: My ticket was no headlight and no helmet and no M1 license on dirtbike after dark on street(ticket for license and headlight only).

[saizai]

Do it. And here's a whole new stragedy for you(it worked for me!):
When the judge asks your plea - say "Guilty as sin, sir!"

Dunno if the bolded is a typo or an intentional pun (strategy + tragedy), but it made me laugh. :)

The judge probably figured half the fine was worth paying for the funniest part of his week. ;)

[}Dragon{]

The judge probably figured half the fine was worth paying for the funniest part of his week. ;)

You should always carry a good watch.

















http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/pete_mcentegart/11/21/ten.spot/p1_flava.jpg

[saizai]

:wtf :laughing


Sosrsly, what would be the situation re fines (from my last question)?

[arnoha]

I think you missed the parts where I agreed repeatedly with MM4L and thanked him for his advice - which I've nearly always done.

Yes, I'm asking for advice. That doesn't mean I'll agree with all of it, and that doesn't mean I'm not going to have my own ideas. The point of posting 'em here is to get feedback on them (some of it more useful than others - MM4L being at the top of the list per usual).

I think you mistake my style of figuring out how things work for argument in the combative sense. It's not intended that way, at least.

You may want to rethink the way you approach things, then. The sarcastic remarks you're getting from everyone is a more subtle way of telling you what I said bluntly: your attitude is not helping. I know; I've been there. I'm still working on my own approach to things like this. Takes one to know one, right? I'm not the only one to notice: note the red dot under your name.

T1 Thunder was in a similar position. His attitude, though different and more destructive than yours, was causing him grief here. Wonder of all wonders, he changed. (I sure as hell wasn't expecting that!) He's almost earned his way off my ignore list and only one other person has ever managed to do that. What's more, all the comments about Blunder threads and like have all but disappeared.

Just friendly advice. Take it as you will.

[nakedape]

I think i read carefully enough, and all I could hear over and over again was,

"..just asked a few quick clarifying questions." Another interpretation might be arguing. I get this all the time. "What did I do?" Well, you are violating dress code, you smell like a brewery, and you just called the nicest kid in class a faggot in front of thirty people. Case closed.

The only thing that surprises me more than the sheer volume of whining here is my morbid fascination with it, and some LEO's patient participation. God bless America, BARF and all that it stands for...NApe

[saizai]

"..just asked a few quick clarifying questions." Another interpretation might be arguing.

Questions such as:
"What time is official sunset?"
"Could I see that timetable?" [that he's holding in front of me but not so I can see it easily]
"Could I see that [point]?" [the mini-codebook he took out for reference]
"What time is it now?"
"What county are you a division of?" [multi-county, turns out, which makes figuring out jurisdiction & fines a little weird]
"What city's ordinance is 'MROSD ...'?" [it's not a city's, it's our own]
"Do you just wait here at closing in case people show up?" [they wait there when they see an empty car in the vista pt lot]
... aaaand I can't remember anything else really.

Pertinent, simple to answer, nothing directly challenging at all. Just clarification.

Plus some more casual conversational things - e.g. do you guys go through regular POST or something ranger specific; what sort of stops do y'all usually have.

Pretty innocuous IMO. *shrug*

[nakedape]

Thanks Sai, you proved my point. Since the fact is you were acting in good faith but still got written up, it's so much better to argue (I mean clarify) later. How many times to you have to hear "I remember every person who questions me when i write them and make sure to show up to court" from LEOs before you get it? Honestly, no bash, but I've been let off so many times by politely ANSWERING all questions and ADMITTING GUILT.

Now, this may run counter to a lot of what you may read here, but minor infractions (not moving violations) or parking tickets are just that; not worth pissing and moaning about. OTOH, when a sheriff asked me to implicate myself and I knew he didn't see/radar me, I muted and shrugged, "who...Me?" Nah, wasn't me. No ticket, but know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

"What time is it now?":laughing:laughing I would have told you to look at your watch and "sign here please". I guess it's hard for you to see, but the tone of your questions is somewhat condescending. It's a cheap learning experience you had. That's all. if you need more perspective, read through some RIP threads:|..NApe

[Dove]

Thanks Sai, you proved my point. Since the fact is you were acting in good faith but still got written up, it's so much better to argue (I mean clarify) later. How many times to you have to hear "I remember every person who questions me when i write them and make sure to show up to court" from LEOs before you get it? Honestly, no bash, but I've been let off so many times by politely ANSWERING all questions and ADMITTING GUILT.

Now, this may run counter to a lot of what you may read here, but minor infractions (not moving violations) or parking tickets are just that; not worth pissing and moaning about. OTOH, when a sheriff asked me to implicate myself and I knew he didn't see/radar me, I muted and shrugged, "who...Me?" Nah, wasn't me. No ticket, but know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

"What time is it now?":laughing:laughing I would have told you to look at your watch and "sign here please". I guess it's hard for you to see, but the tone of your questions is somewhat condescending. It's a cheap learning experience you had. That's all. if you need more perspective, read through some RIP threads:|..NApe

Best BARF post ever. You eloquently spoke everything I was thinking. :thumbup

(Apparently I rep'd you before Mr. Ape, sorry I can't again.)

[saizai]

nape - If I had a watch or cell on me (that wasn't dead), I wouldn't have asked about time.

As for condescending... I don't think that was the case. If anything it's saying that I'm the one who lacks knowledge, and would like to understand the situation. I wasn't asking him anything that I already knew as a test, if that's what you're thinking, and I didn't do it in a combative way at all. And I answered all his questions quickly & honestly.

(If you mean by RIP threads what I think you do...) I fully understand that officers have a certain amount of justified paranoia about their personal safety on the job. Plenty of people will start a fight, suddenly do something crazy, etc. I'm not one of 'em, and I try to make that fairly clear - and to be tolerant of the things they do to skew the odds (e.g. pointing big lights at me, separating groups, etc).

[Dove]

nape - If I had a watch or cell on me (that wasn't dead), I wouldn't have asked about time.

As for condescending... I don't think that was the case. If anything it's saying that I'm the one who lacks knowledge, and would like to understand the situation. I wasn't asking him anything that I already knew as a test, if that's what you're thinking, and I didn't do it in a combative way at all. And I answered all his questions quickly & honestly.

(If you mean by RIP threads what I think you do...) I fully understand that officers have a certain amount of justified paranoia about their personal safety on the job. Plenty of people will start a fight, suddenly do something crazy, etc. I'm not one of 'em, and I try to make that fairly clear - and to be tolerant of the things they do to skew the odds (e.g. pointing big lights at me, separating groups, etc).


Swing! ...and a miss. :laughing

[nakedape]

It's not "tolerance" you show officers with a ticket book and a gun, it's obedience. You're there to listen to and respond to requests/commands. He/she is the one asking questions, you just answer politely. I can't be anymore concise...NApe

[nakedape]

Oh jeez, i had to re-read that. No, you didn't get what I meant about RIP threads. I meant that for some perspective about the relative gravity of your complaint, you should think about how fortunate you are not to be dead.

Pay the $35 please, if you can't, i will send it to you so that we may be done with this...NApe

[scalvert]

Want to know how to act when dealing with a cop in the field? Watch Full Metal Jacket. Figure the cop is R Lee Ermey's character. Don't do anything while talking to a cop that would cause a Marine Recruit trouble with R Lee Ermey. It's not something most Americans can get their heads around and this is probably a good thing, because it's a really weird system. Out in the field when you're talking to a cop you _are_ scum, a second class lower life form, and you have _no_ rights. Your best advise is to be scared, act scared, and be thankful for whatever trouble the cop decides not to give you. The cop can give you far far more trouble than you can handle, and you're always best to remember that.

_Later_ in a court room your civil rights are added back into the mix, and if the cop wants to get support out of the system he needs to show he exercised certain restraint with regard to his treatment of you. This enforcement of your rights is, however, always after the fact, and is often rather weak. It won't un-break your face if the cop decides to break it for you, won't help you much if he makes up a bunch of bogus charges, and REALLY won't help you if you motivate him to look very closely at you and write up any letter of the law violation he can find. In the field, where the important things happen, you are powerless and will be well served to remember that.

[saizai]

No, you didn't get what I meant about RIP threads. I meant that for some perspective about the relative gravity of your complaint, you should think about how fortunate you are not to be dead.

... are you serious?

I didn't say that this is an uber important matter. But I'd still fight a $150 ticket when I don't think I did anything wrong. You seem to imply that anything less than death isn't enough to give a shit about protecting?

It's not "tolerance" you show officers with a ticket book and a gun, it's obedience. You're there to listen to and respond to requests/commands. He/she is the one asking questions, you just answer politely. I can't be anymore concise...NApe

It's "tolerance" when they shine bright lights in your eyes, etc.

I respect police, and will go along with them when they're doing their job right. I understand that to do their job well, they need to take certain measures that cause me discomfort to ensure their safety, because they don't know me and don't know whether I'm armed and/or dangerous to start. I am however willing to, yes, tolerate that discomfort so long as they act within their authority etc.

But, sorry, but I'm not a slave. I have not (unlike a marine) signed away my rights, and never will.

A police officer's gun should not be relevant to someone behaving lawfully. If it is, then we are suddenly talking about life in a lawless police state, in which case the rules are indeed different. It is my hope however that the USA never sinks that low.

[}Dragon{]

It's "tolerance" when they shine bright lights in your eyes, etc..

A cop looked at me funny last week when I waived at him (using my whole hand). I thought of complaining, but I figured I'd be tolerant. :rolleyes



How often do you get bright lights shined at you that you have to be "tolerant"? I know if I stick my finger in the light socket- I'm gonna get shocked, so I don't do it anymore.:|

[B-Cuz]

I know if I stick my finger in the light socket- I'm gonna get shocked, so I don't do it anymore.:|

So old dogs can learn new tricks?
243883

:rofl:twofinger:rofl

[saizai]

We got two courtesy notices. Mine didn't come through - probably the post office fucking up my PO box yet again. :(

A slight difference on the notice is that it gives the violation as "CO-8053 Enter preserve after hour". An odd way to cite the law...

Anyway, I'm writing up a trial by declaration document. Here's what I've got so far. I've omitted the surrounding stuff (e.g. the bit about subpoena of records, per suggestion); see the new thread (http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238633) for that.

I've "borrowed" liberally from MM4L's very helpful responses.

Other suggestions appreciated, as this is adapting his advice somewhat from being aimed at a cross-examination (which I suspect he does quite often ;)) than at a flat declaration.

Declaration:

I and two friends went to Russian Ride Open Space Preserve on February 17th to watch the sunset. We parked at the Vista Point parking lot at approximately 17:00-17:30.

As we entered the park, we read a sign on the gate that said, "Park closed half hour after sunset". We reasonably interpreted this to mean that that the rules accommodated access to the area to observe the process of the sun setting and give adequate time to safely make egress from the area.

We proceeded to walk up to the hill adjoining Borel Hill - a horizontal distance of 2400 ft, which took approximately 15 minutes. Borel Hill is at 2572 ft elevation above sea level - the highest named point in San Mateo County. The view towards the west was excellent, with clouds / fog below us as far as the horizon, and very little light pollution.

We talked quietly, watched the sun set, and immediately proceeded to walk towards the exit after the sunset, when it was beginning to get dark. It took less than 15 minutes to leave, since the return was downhill. We tried to check the time, but the only timepieces we had were cellphones, which were out of battery.

Had we not been detained by the ranger on our way back, we would have exited the park about 15 minutes before one half hour after sunset, as we expected to do upon entering - well within compliance with the requirement as posted.

We did not drink any alcohol, leave any trace of our presence, make noise, or otherwise cause any disturbance, nor have we ever done so in enjoying the preserves.

According to the US Naval Observatory, sunset for that day began at 17:51; end of civil twilight was at 18:18; end of nautical twilight was at 18:45; and end of astronomical twilight was at 19:15.


Argument:

We obeyed the law as posted, by leaving before one half hour after sunset.

Sunset is an event with duration. Only its onset can be predicted with any accuracy generally, and even that is problematic. According to the USNO at http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/RST_defs.php, the sunset times it gives explicitly do not take into account elevation or atmospheric conditions. Both of these were relevant to our presence at Russian Ridge - with high elevation, low horizon, cloudy conditions, and very low light pollution - and resulted in a true time of the beginning of sunset significantly later than that given in the automatic calculations table used by the Ranger.

The end of sunset is even more dependent on local conditions, which is why astronomers have three different definitions for it - 'civil twilight', 'naval twilight', and 'astronomical twilight', each intending to approximate a certain level of light pollution. The level of light pollution appropriate to our location was between naval and astronomical.

Additionally, the time of 19:03 listed on the complaint is later than the time at which we were stopped by the ranger.

Since we were there to watch the sun set and we left directly after the sun set, and since we reasonably presumed that it would not take us more than 30 minutes to depart, we never anticipated nor reasonably knew we would be in violation of the posted sign. I.e., we fully intended to, and in fact did, comply with the stated requirement to exit the park "[one] half hour after sunset".

Therefore, in the interest of justice, I should be found not guilty.

If we win:

[reference to win]

I request that the court order MROSD to amend 805.3 to be compatible with a reasonable interpretation of the signs as posted, and as intended by common sense, to prevent further unjust prosecutions and harassment of individuals enjoying the parks in a civil manner within the scope of their intended use.

Finally, I request that all records on this matter be expunged.

If we lose:

A total fine of $157 is excessive. The MROSD Board of Directors voted for a fine of only $35 for 805.3. The total fine imposed is thus nearly five times as large as the legislative intent.

Additionally, $157 is excessive simply by common sense, for people sincerely obeying the laws as posted, behaving appropriately, and enjoying the public park system for its intended purpose.

By both of these arguments, the penalty violates Article VIII of the US constitution.

Therefore, the charge should be dismissed or my fine reduced to match that envisioned by legislative intent and common sense.

[5MARY4]

Everything after: "Therefore, in the interest of justice, I should be found not guilty." should be highlighted and DELETED. You make an outstanding case before you went off the deep end. Focus on winning your case first. AFTER you do that send a follow up letter to the court if you wish.

[saizai]

5M4 - My understanding was that I had to do everything in the one declaration. Are you suggesting that if I am found guilty, even within the TbD, I can request a fine reduction after that finding? And that if I'm found innocent, I can request the injunction afterwards?

That'd be my preference - if I can hold the conditionals in my pocket until they're appropriate, so much the better - but I just thought that once this was filed, it's the *only* thing I can say in the matter (until a TdN at least).

(Edited previous post to incorporate your suggestion)

[Dove]

"We tried to check the time, but the only timepieces we had were cellphones, which were out of battery" and "Additionally, the time of 19:03 listed on the complaint is later than the time at which we were stopped by the ranger."

If you couldn't check the time - how could you possibly know that the time the officer wrote down was wrong?

I find it rather ironic that the ONE time you needed to check the time, you had NO means to do so between THREE people. I also find it ironic that an officer would go so far out of his way as to put 7:03pm on a ticket just to make you look guilty. I don't know, I still say you'll lose. :laughing

Entertaining none-teh-less.

For the record, it's my two friends and I. You're clearly into details so you probably already knew. ;) :2cents

[saizai]

I didn't say the officer lied. But the time on the ticket is the time he wrote the ticket, not the time he made contact. And I asked him what time it was when he was writing it, to confirm that that was the case.

Re. the grammar, phbbt. :P (I actually did think of that. In this case, I figured it's better to highlight the "I" since it's an individual response.)

[saizai]

Went to arraignment today.

Judge asked what happened, I said something like "we're accused of having been in Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve after hours; we plead not guilty" and got cut off by the judge saying "Since it's a first time offense, I'm going to suspend the fine; you're free to go".

So yay. :)

I'm almost disappointed at not getting to use all those fancy arguments. :nerd :laughing

And I kinda wonder what the status of it is now. We pled not guilty, but no actual *determination* has been made. So we're neither found not guilty nor guilty, but we're also not charged anything. My guess is that this is equivalent to the prosecution being put on hold, i.e. if we're clean until the statute of limitations expires, it goes away; otherwise they can hypothetically renew charging us with it.

But it's not a moving violation ergo not a point on our DMV records (something he seemed to particularly care about, but that figures since he mostly does traffic cases), so... yeah. One sentence of judicial good mood and poof it's effectively gone. :Party


Also, notable: VC "state assessments" are WAY more than the actual underlying "fine". This seems rather weird to me - why don't they just call it a single fine and be done with it? How they split it up is an administrative issue, not a legal one. Almost seems like an intentional way to hide a huge added fine. :rolleyes

[OldFatGuy]

Went to arraignment today.

Judge asked what happened, I said something like "we're accused of having been in Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve after hours; we plead not guilty" and got cut off by the judge saying "Since it's a first time offense, I'm going to suspend the fine; you're free to go"...


...And I kinda wonder what the status of it is now. We pled not guilty, but no actual *determination* has been made. So we're neither found not guilty nor guilty, but we're also not charged anything.

In my experience, "fine suspended" means you're found guilty but you pay nothing. But I'm not sure if that's the case here.

[saizai]

In my experience, "fine suspended" means you're found guilty but you pay nothing. But I'm not sure if that's the case here.

Yeah, I've seen that too. E.g. the traffic school option is something like that I think. He did browbeat one guy (nicked for speeding) into taking traffic school instead of pleading not guilty (the guy made the mistake of saying something about having been "going with the flow" and the juge went on a mini rant about how other people breaking the law doesn't make it OK for you to do so :laughing).

But we explicitly pled not guilty, and it was an arraignment not a trial, so the judge didn't have the authority to find otherwise...

[Razel]

Went to arraignment today.

Judge asked what happened, I said something like "we're accused of having been in Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve after hours; we plead not guilty" and got cut off by the judge saying "Since it's a first time offense, I'm going to suspend the fine; you're free to go".

So yay. :)

I'm almost disappointed at not getting to use all those fancy arguments. :nerd :laughing
I have to wonder if the judge "saw you comin'" with that opening statement. :teeth

Others may have gone with "Well, your honor, it's like this..."

I also think he found you guilty, as his first statement was "Since it's a first-time offense...". Over and done before you had time to consider. Yeah, I think he saw you coming.

Or, the judge reads BARF?

[saizai]

I also think he found you guilty, as his first statement was "Since it's a first-time offense...". Over and done before you had time to consider. Yeah, I think he saw you coming.

If he did, he could lose his job. A judge can dismiss or reduce charges, but not make a finding of fact or guilt, at an arraignment. Especially when I say the magic words "I plead not guilty". :teeth :angel

[2nsane]

http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/sunrise.html

This site can be your friend. I use it for Work when I have to get sunset and sunrise times.:thumbup

Nice the judge let you out of the fine.:cool

[Rambeezi]

Cool!! :thumbup Although I too would've like to see (or hear from you) the process and outcome if it did go to trial. :p

[Razel]

If he did, he could lose his job. A judge can dismiss or reduce charges, but not make a finding of fact or guilt, at an arraignment. Especially when I say the magic words "I plead not guilty". :teeth :angel
Ok. Did they set a trial date? I realize it's an arraignment, but it sure read as if "case closed". If not, your arguments still have an opportunity to bear fruit.

[mnb]

Fuckin bikers, nothing but trouble, the whole lot of em!

[saizai]

Ok. Did they set a trial date? I realize it's an arraignment, but it sure read as if "case closed". If not, your arguments still have an opportunity to bear fruit.

No trial date. The judge said (semi-quoting) "I'm suspending the fine, you're free to leave."

I asked if we'd get any paperwork from it or if there was anything else I needed to do, and he said no.

That actually makes me somewhat uncomfortable. At least if it went to trial and there was a finding, I'd have an official paper showing that I'm guilty or not guilty or whatever. In this case I have nothing.

But ohwell, I guess I don't have to worry about it. *shrug*

(Which is a good thing - I started a new job today, so I could use as much stuff to worry about gone as possible.)

[Menke]

Why did I just start humming "Alice's Restaurant" while reading this?

27 eight by ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to mention the aerial photography:rofl

[Dove]

Why did I just start humming "Alice's Restaurant" while reading this?

27 eight by ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to mention the aerial photography:rofl

Can you imagine what happens when saizai gets a speeding ticket? Poor officer. :laughing

[T-1 Thunder]

Can you imagine what happens when saizai gets a speeding ticket? Poor officer. :laughing

Saizai - the asian sawzall!
I'd hire him for help if I'm ever going to court. I think he does great research and posts forth excellent arguements.
:thumbup


Sai - follow up with the court to ensure you're clear. You should be able to get something stating you took care of it. Judge usually sends a paper down to the clerks office with the results of your case. I'd try and get my hands on that paper. :)

[saizai]

T1 - I'll give it a couple weeks to filter through at least.

But... I'm not sure what paper I *could* get. There was no judgment entered.

[motorman4life]

They enter the dispo within an hour after the hearing or arraignment, so you should be able to go to the clerk now and they should be able to look it up by the case or citation number and give you the disposition on your case and what they entered as your plea.

A suspended fine would be appropriate in a case where you are convicted at trial or plead guilty at arraignment... since you did not plead no contest (or "guilty") and there was no prosecution and no trial.. I do not see how he could have adjudicated the case without simply dismissing it. But, "case dismissed" and "I'm suspending the fine" are certainly NOT the same thing.

I would wait the full 45 days from the arraignment date, myself. Then, I'd go investigate by getting something in writing from the traffic clerk. Since you did not waive time and you entered a "not guilty" plea, (as you know) your hearing must be held within 45 days of your araignment. If it turns out you were "convicted" and/or a plea (that you didn't make) was entered on your behalf, then you should/could appeal the case as you did not plead guilty (or no contest) and did not waive time at your arraignment. Your case should have been dismissed if that is what the judge intended to do.

But, as I said, I would follow up on it after the 45 days.. so they cannot re-open the case.

[saizai]

Thanks again for the advice, mm4l. Will do exactly that.

Good point re the not having waived time; I didn't think of it but you're absolutely right. Should make it a cinch to force a closure if that's not what happened already. :thumbup

I know the judge *could* have dismissed the case ("in the interest of justice") without an adjudication per se, but he didn't say that. And I pled not guilty. So enh, I guess I'll update here in another month or so with the final results. ;)

FWIW, he did say for some other people that he was dismissing some or all charges, and for some that he was waiving the fine (but they had pled guilty). So it'll be interesting to see what's in the official version. Maybe he said he suspended it but actually entered a dismissal? Maybe he just let it slide as nonprosecuted?

If it got entered as "guilty, fines suspended" I'll raise a stink, but otherwise, enh. *shrug* I'll wait the 45 days so that it there's no possibility of it being reopened if I need to complain. ;)

[saizai]

Checked here (http://www.sanmateocourt.org/midx/searchform4_tim.php) and here (https://www.sanmateocourt.org/traffic/) and both have no record of me or my citation.

Guess I'll call 'em at (650) 363-4300 later.

[saizai]

I called up the court yesterday to ask what the status of my trial was, just in case.

The clerk said that according to records, I was found guilty with sentence suspended.

Here's my response (going to send by mail to the court):

ATTN: Commissioner
Redwood City Superior Court
500 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063

RE: Docket # [docket #], [date]


Dear Commissioner,

I am writing to request a review of my case.

I came in to your court last March to contest an alleged violation of MROSD 805.3, together with two friends, [friend #1] and [friend #2], who were charged with the same offense for the same alleged incident. ([friend #2] appeared on a different day.)

I pled not guilty, and requested that the Court dismiss my case. The court quickly decided to do so, and said I was free to leave. I specifically asked whether I was being found guilty with merely sentence suspended, rather than having the case dismissed in fact, and was told that no, the latter was the case.

I called the Court yesterday and spoke to [clerk name], who told me that according to court records, I was found guilty with sentence suspended.

Although I understand that this will not affect my driver's record, and I am not being fined in any way – and I certainly appreciate the Commissioner's finding to my benefit in this regard – this outcome still concerns me greatly, for three reasons.

First, any finding of guilt is a matter of public record. This finding could potentially be used against me in future criminal or civil cases, in employment background checks, or many other matters. As such, I consider any finding of guilt, even with sentence suspended, to still be a punishment because it tarnishes my reputation. As I maintain my innocence of the charge and have had no trial which convicted me otherwise, this is an unjust punishment.

Second, I believe it to be unconstitutional. The case was, by California law, an allegation of criminal infraction. I appeared in court for an arraignment only; there were neither prosecution nor witnesses present, and I neither consented to nor was informed of its status as a trial of fact. I pled not guilty.

Accordingly, I find it extremely strange that I could constitutionally have been found guilty on the record, as this violates my rights under the fifth and sixth Amendments, among other things – for example, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right.... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

I feel that my Constitutional rights have been violated, which is in itself sufficient cause to object, regardless of any other harmful outcome.

Finally, I am concerned that this is apparently the common practice of this Court, and that it is deceptive, given the Commissioner's assurances to me that I was cleared of all charges.

I request the Court for a review of this case, complete clearing of any record of a finding of guilt, and an explanation of the legal grounds on which I was found guilty.

Sincerely,

[name & address]

[Marlowe]

So, let me get this straight. You were admittedly, in the park, well after hours that were even posted at the entrance... You were not fined and face no other sanctions.

Nobody's going to care if you have a record for *gasp* BEING IN A PARK AFTER HOURS.

Just let it go, man. :rolleyes You did it, you admitted to doing it, and you were let go...isn't that enough? Do you want blood? Do you want the ranger to commit seppuku?

[saizai]

Marlowe -
a) I don't believe I was guilty, per long previous discussion that I don't care to reiterate.
b) Regardless, innocent until proven guilty at trial. I had no trial, and pled not guilty, ergo I should not have been found guilty.

[masameet]

saizai, you continue to make me :laughing. If only that laughter was with you and not at you.

[Marlowe]

I recall the discussion, but you were cited in the park 73 minutes after sunset. Sunset is a common word with a common definition. I found your argument novel, but not compelling.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

The event or time of the daily disappearance of the sun below the western horizon.

Webster's:

The descent of the sun below the horizon; also, the time when the sun sets; evening. Also used figuratively.

Wikipedia:

Sunset...is the instant when the trailing edge of the sun's disk disappears below the horizon in the west. It should not be confused with dusk, which is the point at which darkness falls, some time after the beginning of twilight when the sun itself sets.

And while I understand doing things for the principle, given that absolutely nobody has any interest in (or is even likely to see) such a conviction and you aren't out any money, and you have the option of walking away now without being out any more of your time, I just don't understand it.

It would annoy me too if I felt I was in the right, but it wouldn't annoy me enough to take more time off of work. I'd also be disinclined to pursue this because frankly bickering over a conviction for something so trivial is a waste of the court's time, and I'd rather they spend time on more serious offenses.

[JPM]

I say stand up for your rights! The judge knows you are guilty and threw you a bone by making it no punishment (Fine). Good for you telling that judge he doesn’t know anything about the law or constitution. I hope you get your day in court! :thumbup

PS- bring your checkbook. :p

[saizai]

Marlowe - As I said, I don't care to re-discuss the facts of the case, since they are not at issue.

[masameet]

But you just told us you're were adjudged GUILTY!

:laughing

[saizai]

masameet - Evidently you don't read too good.

According to the record I was found guilty. However, that's not legal (I had no trial, only arraignment, and pled not guilty), and is not consistent with what the comissioner told me at the time. There was no actual finding of guilt, since there was no trial and the judge never looked at the facts or arguments involved.