Posted order violation, should I fight it?

[mrdrinker]

California. I was busted by a park ranger for enjoying a single beer down by a river where no one else was around. Its a misdemeanor, but they said if I paid them near $500 it would make the whole thing go away. I'm suffering from a bad case of butthurt here, and I really want to fight it.

Misdemeanors are guaranteed trial by jury under the law. I really want to take it that far and represent myself. I don't think the judge will ever allow it to go that far over a matter of $500 but I would really like to see how far I can get.

The main question I have is, can they really throw the book at me for wasting their time? If found guilty, can they actually fine me up to $1000 and 6 months in state prison? If so, I'd have to weigh that one out. Not that jail really bothers me, its something I've never tried before. Also, in my line of work as a software engineer, they dont do background checks.

I've got some PTO saved up so I can do all the court dates. Between my time in jury duty and my excellent ability to do research, I think I have a good chance at defending myself.

I really think this would be a fun experience, but I want to know what the pitfalls are.

 

[sandyclaus]

California. I was busted by a park ranger for enjoying a single beer down by a river where no one else was around. Its a misdemeanor, but they said if I paid them near $500 it would make the whole thing go away. I'm suffering from a bad case of butthurt here, and I really want to fight it.

Misdemeanors are guaranteed trial by jury under the law. I really want to take it that far and represent myself. I don't think the judge will ever allow it to go that far over a matter of $500 but I would really like to see how far I can get.

The main question I have is, can they really throw the book at me for wasting their time? If found guilty, can they actually fine me up to $1000 and 6 months in state prison? If so, I'd have to weigh that one out. Not that jail really bothers me, its something I've never tried before. Also, in my line of work as a software engineer, they dont do background checks.

I've got some PTO saved up so I can do all the court dates. Between my time in jury duty and my excellent ability to do research, I think I have a good chance at defending myself.

I really think this would be a fun experience, but I want to know what the pitfalls are.

Which statute are were you cited for?

 

[LordofBooks]

Of course they can "throw the book" at you. Though this doesn't always happens, especially in this age of plea bargaining, but it's definitely possible. While courts aren't supposed to punish people for using their rights, any time you're convicted for an offense, the court retains discretion on sentencing. They are only limited by the statute itself. So if the applicable statute in your case sets the maximum sentence in the way you described, a court would be in its power to sentence you as such.

 

[BigMouthWino]

***THIS IS PROBABLY BAD ADVICE***

But as a fellow drinker who enjoys having a beer on the river I would love it if you took it all the way up through a jury trial. You are risking an angry judge who could hit you hard at sentencing. You would have to strike the right balance while representing yourself of humility for the power of the court and indignation at the law and the fine to minimize the backlash if you were to select a jury of Puritans that would actually convict you of this.

If they want their money, make them earn it. How clearly were the signs posted? How far were the signs from where you were drinking? Do you have a valid defense other than you don't agree with the law?

Good luck!

 

[mrdrinker]

I was cited for mc-4326a Violation of a posted order. Thanks for the positive advice! I too would love to take this to trial! There were signs but they were not clear. Anything is defensible.

Searching for mc-4326a, I cant find any reliable info on it from google, but i'm going to do some digging, even if it means digging through all their city codes and past cases. Thanks!!

 

[sandyclaus]

I tried to research it as well. All I found was the law in the California Code of Regulations, but it doesn't state the actual PENALTY for violating it. I do see that it is charged as a criminal charge, as a misdemeanor.

You think you're prepared for a trial with a jury? If you've never done it before, it isn't ANYTHING like you are thinking it is, and it certainly is not as easy as you think it will be. If you're thinking along the lines of "Law & Order", think again. Without the assistance of good attorney who has done these before, you are totally and completely out of your league.

If it's a matter of paying $500 compared to paying $1,000, the time and sanity you'd save would be MORE than worth it, IMHO. If you lose, this will remain on your permanent record. And do you really want to risk the possibility of going to jail? Trust me, it's not as interesting and exciting as you seem to believe. That most certainly isn't MY idea of a good way to spend my hard-earned PTO.

And while you may think it's a good idea to try to play dumb and claim you didn't see the signs or they weren't clearly posted, I'm sure that's a crock. I'm sure you not only saw the signs, but that you violated the law anyway - because you thought you wouldn't get caught, because you thought just one beer wouldn't matter, and because you thought that the idea of not being able to do what you want was ridiculous.

 

[CdwJava]

I was cited for mc-4326a Violation of a posted order. Thanks for the positive advice! I too would love to take this to trial! There were signs but they were not clear. Anything is defensible.

Searching for mc-4326a, I cant find any reliable info on it from google, but i'm going to do some digging, even if it means digging through all their city codes and past cases. Thanks!!

What city was this?

Also, most municipal codes end up being filed as infractions which means that you will essentially appear in traffic court and make your case to a judge, not a jury. That means that you will have to argue the law and not seek a win by trying to make an emotional appeal to one member of the jury.

But, before we get ahead of ourselves we need to know the jurisdiction as this appears to be a muni code violation.

 

[sandyclaus]

What city was this?

Also, most municipal codes end up being filed as infractions which means that you will essentially appear in traffic court and make your case to a judge, not a jury. That means that you will have to argue the law and not seek a win by trying to make an emotional appeal to one member of the jury.

But, before we get ahead of ourselves we need to know the jurisdiction as this appears to be a muni code violation.

FYI, when I looked it up, I was able to find Santa Clara County's bail schedule, which shows this particular violation to be a misdemeanor. Like I said, I found it also listed under the Parks Department Code of Regulations, but no specific penalty shows under that listing.

 

[mrdrinker]

Yeah its a misdemeanor. If I just pay the $500, its admiting guilt and it goes on my perminent record anyway. The jury, however would be sympathetic.

I could get a public defender as a legal reference, but I'm definitely calling the shots.

 

[mrdrinker]

This was on state park property near Nevada city, CA.

 

[CdwJava]

All because it is technically a misdemeanor does NOT mean that it shall be filed as such. In my experience most are filed as infractions.

And why they put "MC" in front of a CC&R section, I can't say.

§ 4326. Violation of Posted Orders or Special Use, Special Event, Film or Collection Permit.

No person shall
(a) violate any provision of an order posted pursuant to the provisions of section 4301(i) hereof including, but not limited to, prohibited areas, use periods, no alcoholic beverage areas, no smoking areas and no parking areas, where posted in accordance with 4301(q), or,

(b) violate any provision or restriction of a Special Use, Special Event, Film or Collection permit issued pursuant to these regulations.​

So ... what is your defense? Did you HAVE the beer in a prohibited area? Understand that arguing that you had it, but you did not bother anyone is the equivalent of admitting guilt. And unless you want to be subject to cross-examination, you will not be allowed to offer any statements as to why you did what you did while you are acting as your own attorney and examining the officer.

If charged as a misdemeanor, you can try and do what you wish. But, if they are willing to make the matter go away with the payment of a fine, and you choose to reject the plea and go to trial on a misdemeanor, they just might decide that jail is a viable option ... provided the crime is a misdemeanor with jail time as a possibility (the CCR is a bear to navigate because it includes a great many regulations).

Oh, and here is the requirement for "posted":

(i) Posting of Notices. The term “posted” as used herein, unless otherwise indicated, shall mean and require that the Department shall set aside at the district headquarters and at the unit affected and in a location convenient to the general public, a bulletin board or similar device upon which shall be posted all special instructions, orders, pertaining to units of the district including but not limited to special hours of operation, swimming and boating restrictions, hunting and camping restrictions, and special instructions pertaining to areas where activities are curtailed or restricted. Proof of posting shall be filed in the offices of the division chiefs or the Sacramento California Office of the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation.​

 

[sandyclaus]

Yeah its a misdemeanor. If I just pay the $500, its admiting guilt and it goes on my perminent record anyway. The jury, however would be sympathetic.

I could get a public defender as a legal reference, but I'm definitely calling the shots.

So, how about answering a couple of questions, in preparation for your defense...? Were you in a State Park, and were you consuming alcohol?

Are you going to try to say that you did not see the sign? Or are you thinking of trying to convince a jury that despite seeing the signs, you have a good reason for disobeying it?

If you have a job, it's HIGHLY unlikely that you would qualify for a free public defender - especially if you can afford to take time off to play around at being your own lawyer.

Trust me - a decent jury is not going to find you innocent of these charges. You would have to have been NOT drinking in the park, or be able to prove that you didn't see the signs, or that the law somehow doesn't apply to you. Sympathy has nothing to do with it. The jury is going to be instructed to FOLLOW THE LAW in making their decision, as they always are. Your situation is not such a controversial case which would give the jury a reason to exercise nullification (which is what you seem to be hoping for) - and even if they do, the judge still has the ability to overrule the jury if they feel it's unwarranted, and find you guilty ANYWAY (it's called judicial discretion, and your case would be a perfect example of when it SHOULD be applied).

So, if you are dead set on going the jury route, be prepared to be totally embarrassed. You'll waste YOUR time, the time of the judge and jury, and end up having to cover the costs of all the proceedings as well. (That includes the cost to seat a jury - yes, you will have to pay for that.)

 

[mrdrinker]

Thanks for the info everyone, this is really good info.

I don't need to examine the cop. If the DA wants to, then fine. I expect to question a local alcoholic and enter it as expert testimony. Also a signage expert. The only thing i'll enter into evidence is an empty beer bottle and photos of the signs. I wont have any excuses like "its not hurting anybody". I'm strictly sticking to fact that the posted orders are ambiguous and difficult to see.

Jury selection and proceedings will be quick, and the jury will appreciate that. In and out in 2 or 3 days and they don't have to do jury duty for at least another year. +1

So representing myself I can't direct examine/cross examine myself??? That seems like an unfair disadvantage. I *would* use a public defender for legal advice, but that means that they would have to do all the talking in trial, and *I* want to do all the talking.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Thanks for the info everyone, this is really good info.

I don't need to examine the cop. If the DA wants to, then fine. I expect to question a local alcoholic and enter it as expert testimony. Also a signage expert. The only thing i'll enter into evidence is an empty beer bottle and photos of the signs. I wont have any excuses like "its not hurting anybody". I'm strictly sticking to fact that the posted orders are ambiguous and difficult to see.

Jury selection and proceedings will be quick, and the jury will appreciate that. In and out in 2 or 3 days and they don't have to do jury duty for at least another year. +1

So representing myself I can't direct examine/cross examine myself??? That seems like an unfair disadvantage. I *would* use a public defender for legal advice, but that means that they would have to do all the talking in trial, and *I* want to do all the talking.

Oh boy - this right here is 100% good cause for you to use an attorney. Just about every last thing you've said is blatantly misinformed or just flat out incorrect.

 

[sandyclaus]

Thanks for the info everyone, this is really good info.

I don't need to examine the cop. If the DA wants to, then fine. I expect to question a local alcoholic and enter it as expert testimony. Also a signage expert. The only thing i'll enter into evidence is an empty beer bottle and photos of the signs. I wont have any excuses like "its not hurting anybody". I'm strictly sticking to fact that the posted orders are ambiguous and difficult to see.

Jury selection and proceedings will be quick, and the jury will appreciate that. In and out in 2 or 3 days and they don't have to do jury duty for at least another year. +1

So representing myself I can't direct examine/cross examine myself??? That seems like an unfair disadvantage. I *would* use a public defender for legal advice, but that means that they would have to do all the talking in trial, and *I* want to do all the talking.

Oh boy - this right here is 100% good cause for you to use an attorney. Just about every last thing you've said is blatantly misinformed or just flat out incorrect.

I'm wondering what RELEVANT testimony a local alcoholic is going to be able to offer, and just how you plan on qualifying them as an expert witness. (Expert at what? Drinking alcohol? I don't see how that will be relevant - or helpful to OP's case.)

I'm also wondering how he feels that jury selection will be quick. Do you have any idea on how to pick a jury? What kinds of questions you can and cannot ask during voir dire? How to challenge a juror?

Representing yourself means that any testimony you give will be in the narrative. Of course you can't cross-examine yourself (the fact that you even have to ask means you are completely clueless). Once you give testimony, EVERYTHING you say can be cross-examined by the prosecutor.

Last, but certainly not least, you probably are not going to be able to have a public defender - to represent you OR to help you with legal advice. As I stated before, the fact that you are CHOOSING to take time off work means that you can probably afford to pay your own attorney. That means paying them for their advice while you do the talking, if you so choose.

If I didn't live so far away, I would SO love to be a fly on the wall at that trial...