Park Trek 2: The Search for Statute

[You Are Guilty]

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

Wrong-Coastians, I am in need of some assistance. I have been asked to locate a California statute/rule/ordinance and despite my best efforts (and very expensive monthly subscription to a certain unnamed database that sounds suspiciously similar to a Japanese luxury car maker), I have struck out.

Specifically, "1 MP-502.1-I", likely a local Santa Clara ordinance. About the closest I could come up with was this: http://www.openspaceauthority.org/about/pdf/Policy -- Access and Use Regulations -- 09-2002.pdf, which has what would seem like the applicable ordinance in 2.01.01, but clearly does not match.

Interestingly enough, a search on sccaseinfo.org returns no results using either the case number or the felon's name. Violation was two weeks ago, so too soon to appear in the system?

If anyone should have any insight as to Santa Clara Superior Court procedure (as in, likelihood of bail reduction if a really good excuse for being guilty is given), I am all ears.

Domo arigato.


(And if the person who asked me for help should be reading this, please keep your yap shut - I told you I was going to enlist outside aid ).

 

[Zigner]

Do you have a description of what happened and the city it happened in?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Bike riding in Rancho San Antonio County Park, apparently.

 

[Zigner]

So s/he was riding a bike but not on one of the 16 approved trails?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Walking it down a "no riding" trail. Without the actual statute, no way to figure out if possession of bike is what was prohibited or actual "riding".

Why can't you have normal park rules like we do here "Closed after 1am and don't sell crack"?

 

[TigerD]

Have you tried Municode.com?

DC

 

[Zigner]

Why can't you have normal park rules like we do here "Closed after 1am and don't sell crack"?

I suspect the strong Crack Union had a hand in getting those rules thrown out.

 

[tranquility]

Why can't you have normal park rules like we do here "Closed after 1am and don't sell crack"?

Just shows the difference between New York liberals and California liberals. NYL are health fascists while CL are environmental ones.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Have you tried Municode.com?

DC

Doesn't seem to have anything on point, but bookmarked nonetheless. (I can't believe I have never seen this before.)

But now I am wondering if there wasn't some transcription error involved here on the courtesy notice.

Just shows the difference between New York liberals and California liberals. NYL are health fascists while CL are environmental ones.

To be fair, I do support the "No Crack Over 32oz. Ban".

 

[Zigner]

Doesn't seem to have anything on point, but bookmarked nonetheless. (I can't believe I have never seen this before.)

But now I am wondering if there wasn't some transcription error involved here on the courtesy notice.

I think there may have been. I've found reference to a section 502.8, but it seemed to deal with permits for events having to do with bicyclists.

 

[You Are Guilty]

At least I feel slightly better that my google-fu is not the issue.

 

[tranquility]

To be fair, I do support the "No Crack Over 32oz. Ban".

And I the ban on dumping high-level radioactive waste in the drinking water supply.

(Also, I agree with you on Municode.com. Never saw it before and it is awesome.)

 

[CdwJava]

When you say "Santa Clara" do you mean the city, or the county? Could it be a city within that county (or the county itself)? Or, does it have to be an ordinance in that city only?

Could it be a state code?

What did the violation do?

 

[You Are Guilty]

When you say "Santa Clara" do you mean the city, or the county? Could it be a city within that county (or the county itself)? Or, does it have to be an ordinance in that city only?

Could it be a state code?

What did the violation do?

Superior Court - Santa Clara County (Palo Alto courthouse if it matters)

However, through some tenacious dedication, years of experience, and a wily innate sense of google-fu (e.g., blind luck), I was finally able to locate the source:
http://www.openspace.org/preserves/downloads/ord04-01_8sept2004.pdf

Looking at the rule, it does bar operation and possession, so there goes that defense. I'll have to look into the signage issue, but it's looking more and more like its a righteous ticket.

Given the $400 bail, is there any hope of a reduction if one pleads "guilty with an idiotic explanation" or is it pretty much a done deal there?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Isn't there a coverall defense statute in CA, for some violation so screwy it takes more than 3 man hours to find?