Failure to comply with sign in park - NYC

[adny06]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

A friend in New York City was cutting through a NYC Park and wound up being trailed by two undercover police officers, and she received a pink summons:

City of New York Parks & Recreation
Section §1-03 General Provisions

Subsection C:
C: Failure to Comply with Directions of Police Officers, Urban Park Rangers, Parks Enforcement Patrol Officers, or Other Department Employees, or Park Signs.

Paragraph 2:
No person shall fail to comply with or obey any instruction, direction, regulation, warning, or prohibition, written or printed, displayed or appearing on any park sign, except such sign may be disregarded upon order by a Police Officer or designated Department employee.


It alleges that she was in a NYC park and failed to comply with posted signage but did not indicate the signage she had failed to observe. (The summons was issued at 2:50 AM and parks are closed after 1:00 AM, though I don't know if she was near a posted sign.) What strategies, if any, are successful, in contesting this kind of complaint? I imagine having recently got off a plane and not having adjusted to a 13 hour time change may not be an iron-clad defense. It is a criminal complaint, and a record of it would remain at the courthouse for some time.

 

[swalsh411]

Why is everybody's first reaction to getting a ticket "How do I get out of this ticket?" vs. "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have broken the law".

Have your friend post the question. You don't know all the details.

 

[davew128]

Do the entrances to the park (Is it Central Park?) have signs indicating when closing time is? Any NYers know the answer?

 

[adny06]

Something to explore

Do the entrances to the park (Is it Central Park?) have signs indicating when closing time is? Any NYers know the answer?

Thank you for the idea. I'll suggest that she check out the entrances and what was or was not posted.

 

[my_wan]

Why is everybody's first reaction to getting a ticket "How do I get out of this ticket?" vs. "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have broken the law".

I used to have this attitude about tickets I got. That is until pleading guilty to driving on suspended when it was no fault of my own kept retriggering the same suspension without notice to the point I was facing 6 months in jail. Under the law as written I was never even guilty of any but the first occurrence, after a prolonged period of being bedridden, and I took care of that real quick. Even after going a year without driving, even though I had a valid license, just to make sure the last time through court would retrigger a suspension without notice, it still happened again. Less than a week before I called to make sure the license wasn't suspended, a number I had on speed dial by that point, the license was fine.

When I pointed out to the lawyer why I wasn't guilty, seeing that the law required proof I was notified, the lawyer remained skeptical it would help. I went pro se, cleared it up myself, and haven't had any issues since, over 10 years now.

Bottom line is you never know how your willingness to simply take responsibility will get you screwed over and over and over again. The system is rigged in just that way, so that as long as you simply wish to take responsibility and pay whatever dues they deem fit by default it will more often than not keep coming back to bite you again, and again.

 

[HighwayMan]

The system is rigged in just that way, so that as long as you simply wish to take responsibility and pay whatever dues they deem fit by default it will more often than not keep coming back to bite you again, and again.

That's a ridiculous statement that has no merit.

 

[HighwayMan]

A friend in New York City was cutting through a NYC Park and wound up being trailed by two undercover police officers...

That's very dramatic but I'm sure they weren't "undercover" police officers.

It alleges that she was in a NYC park and failed to comply with posted signage but did not indicate the signage she had failed to observe.

It doesn't need to specify much on the face of the summons. Those details are contained in the court information on the back of the original (court) copy.

(The summons was issued at 2:50 AM and parks are closed after 1:00 AM, though I don't know if she was near a posted sign.)

Last time I looked most NYC parks close at dusk and some are 9:00 PM.

I imagine having recently got off a plane and not having adjusted to a 13 hour time change may not be an iron-clad defense.

It's no defense whatsoever. Obviously she felt good enough to be wandering around inside a park in the middle of the night instead of being asleep in bed.

 

[my_wan]

That's a ridiculous statement that has no merit.

The Innocent Defendant’s Dilemma: An Innovative Empirical Study Of Plea Bargaining’s Innocence Problem

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jclc/backissues/v103/n1/1031_1.Dervan.pdf)

In this Article, Professors Dervan and Edkins discuss a recent psychological study they completed regarding plea bargaining and innocence. The study, involving dozens of college students and taking place over several months, revealed that more than half of the innocent participants were willing to falsely admit guilt in return for a benefit. These research findings bring significant new insights to the long-standing debate regarding the extent of plea bargaining’s innocence problem. The Article also discusses the history of bargained justice and examines the constitutional implications of the study’s results on plea bargaining, an institution the Supreme Court reluctantly approved of in 1970 in return for an assurance that it would not be used to induce innocent defendants to falsely admit guilt.

In fact it is now standard practice for prosecutors to maximize all possible charges, even those that can't possibly stand up in court, in order to maximize the claimed penalty if a suspect refuses to plea bargain. This creates allusion of the benefit this article describes to get innocent people to admit guilt. The same issues SCOTUS had issues with in 1970.

The constant snipping at defendants on this forum, with the incessant accusations of guilt, supports this pressure for innocent people to admit guilt. Here is an admittedly extreme video showing how this works in action.

Derren Brown - Making an innocent man admit to murder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJNHQi4uTTY

Now, if you want to respond, I would appreciate something besides a statement on your naked authority.

 

[HighwayMan]

The Innocent Defendant’s Dilemma: An Innovative Empirical Study Of Plea Bargaining’s Innocence Problem

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jclc/backissues/v103/n1/1031_1.Dervan.pdf)

How does all of this apply to New York City Criminal Court Summons Appearance Part?

Are you familiar with this court? Have you ever appeared there?

What does plea bargaining have to do with entering a simple guilty plea to the charge?

 

[single317dad]

I, for one, tend to agree with the spirit of my_wan's argument in many cases, though I disagree somewhat with its application here.

Certainly, I find it in bad form to address a forum of those who likely have more subject knowledge (individually and collectively) than oneself with such brazen confidence. Perhaps a little more tact is in order.

 

[my_wan]

How does all of this apply to New York City Criminal Court Summons Appearance Part?

Are you familiar with this court? Have you ever appeared there?

What does plea bargaining have to do with entering a simple guilty plea to the charge?

It came about as a result of the suggestion that the OPs friend should merely pay for whatever crime they have been accused of. How is "entering a simple guilty plea to the charge" in effect any better than a plea bargain? At least in a plea bargain you have the opportunity to debate a fair penalty, whereas "entering a simple guilty plea to the charge" by default leaves you at the mercy of the merciless. Hence the suggested response is even worse than plea bargaining, for the same reasons I described. Perhaps the penalty is simple enough that it's pointless, or circumstances don't support a conviction under the law. Regardless it's generally a mistake to just enter guilty without knowing and understanding the consequences, even when you fully intend to take responsibility.

However, it seems to me that redirecting the criticism toward the OP topic is merely a diversion to avoid the issue behind you naked claim.

 

[HighwayMan]

...pay for whatever crime they have been accused of...

No one has been accused or charged with any crime.

However, it seems to me that redirecting the criticism toward the OP topic is merely a diversion...

How was the topic criticized?

A diversion? Away from what and towards what?

...to avoid the issue behind you [sic] naked claim.

Naked? You seem to use that adjective alot; and just what is the naked claim you are referring to?

 

[Silverplum]

There is NO nakedness here. None.

 

[my_wan]

No one has been accused or charged with any crime.

A pink summons was issued. Hence there is no set fine or punishment until the judge sets the amount, and may include up to 15 days in jail. You can't even plead guilty without first seeing a judge. Even if you could just pay a fine doing so is in effect an admission of guilt to a crime. Hence it remains on your record as such. Many cops issuing these pink summons mistakenly inform the recipient that it can merely be mailed in, but that is false. Assuming a pink summons is not a criminal charge can be a nightmarish mistake.

How was the topic criticized?

A diversion? Away from what and towards what?

I responded to:

That's a ridiculous statement that has no merit.

Which you in no way justified. Instead you responded by redirecting with a claim that it has nothing to do with the OP, even though I gave even more justification, with references, why it did have merit. You then redirect with a false claim that a pink summons is not an accusation of a crime. A judge, and only a Judge, can determine that. That's why you cannot simply mail it in.

Naked? You seem to use that adjective alot; and just what is the naked claim you are referring to?

Per the claim:

That's a ridiculous statement that has no merit.

You have stated this on authority, with no attempt to justify. Hence it is more than simply an argument from authority, it is a naked argument from authority. Perhaps you know what the fallacy that goes by the name is? Though I guess courts do depend on them heavily, but even then such a naked claim would be more than a little problematic.

 

[davew128]

There is NO nakedness here. None.

Not yet. Give it time, it's early. Besides, what ELSE would a person be doing in a NY park in the early AM hours?