Ticketed for being in a park after hours

[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:

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...

 

[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:

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.

 

[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.

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. Good luck. Please update us on the verdict whenever that happens.

 

[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...

 

[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?

 

[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.