• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Ticketed for being in a park after hours

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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrc
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.:|
 
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 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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)
 
Last edited:
"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
 
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.)
 
The result

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
 
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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Fuckin bikers, nothing but trouble, the whole lot of em!
 
Back
Top