Unlawful Arrest by YNP Rangers? You be the Judge...

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 41 - 60 of total 77 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
Nov 12, 2014 - 09:58pm PT
Are these the alleged gropers?


We probably shouldn't forn any final conclusions until they have their day in court, but from the article they sound like d0uchebags, and it probably pays to be extra careful if you encounter one of them. Video record if possible.


Yosemite Ranger Christopher Bellino


Yosemite Ranger Brendan Bonner


Yosemite Ranger David Sanchez
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Nov 12, 2014 - 10:00pm PT
Failure to provide the ID to the investigating officers upon demand is technically a crime, regardless of preceding events.

**
This is not true, at least in CA (maybe in a federal jurisdiction but I doubt it.)

Unfortunately, many cops don't even know the law regarding ID:

http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-daniele-watts-was-right-20140916-column.html#page=1
**

Hmm, the LA Times opinion piece doesn't really say what the law regarding the requirement to produce ID is--it presents an ACLU lawyer's view and a cop's view, and the opinion writer (who isn't a lawyer, or at least certainly doesn't employ any type of legal research or reasoning in the piece) decides she likes the ACLU guy's answer.

But is it correct? Not according to my reading of this case:
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/189/77.html

I wouldn't say that case gives any clear cut rule, other than cops have some latitude to do what is "reasonable" to require the production of id under the facts of each case.
I have no idea if the cited case is still good law or has been overruled or modified by subsequent laws or cases, and to repeat the issue Dave identified, does California law even apply in Yosemite?
Moof

Big Wall climber
Orygun
Nov 12, 2014 - 10:05pm PT
Show your papers, or else?! We used to mock authoritarian countries for such practices
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Nov 12, 2014 - 10:06pm PT
String the abusive perverted sh#t-head cops up... then throw them in jail.

They abused their authority.
If they had any integrity before this incident.... they have none now in my view.

We can forget they ever existed. They are just scum!
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
Nov 12, 2014 - 10:10pm PT
Nov 12, 2014 - 12:21pm PT
Regardless of the outcome of this case I do feel that the rangers are more aggressive and show less diplomacy in YNP than in other parks that i have visited.
While i am aware that YNP deals with issues more complex than many other NPs, i still feel that there is a culture within the ranger force in YNP that contributes to the many confrontations between rangers and visitors.

Around eight years ago i arrived with my partner in late afternoon at Camp 4. We were looking for a place to sleep before hiking up to the NW Face of Half Dome. Luckily, we ran into some Chilean climbers who had additional space in their campsite. I purchased a $5 permit as per camp regulations.....i was doing everything by the book.
It was perfect weather so i decided not to pitch my tent and slept out in the open instead. I attached my permit to my sleeping bag and fell asleep. At 4:00 am i was awakened by someone kicking my bag. I awoke in the pitch dark and was blinded by a bright light beam shone directly into my eyes. Surprised and confused i quickly started getting out of my bag to defend myself only to have the perpetrator identify himself as a ranger and threaten me. I calmed down when i realized i wasn't being assaulted and asked him what the problem was. He told me that he couldn't see my permit ( i had rolled over while sleeping) and thought that i was sleeping in Camp 4 illegally.
Why he had to confront me in such an aggressive way in the middle of the night is beyond me. Had he come by at first light i would have still been in my bag and he could have checked my permit. He would also have been able to find those persons, if any, that were there illegally.
I travel extensively to climb and always obey the rules set by land managers. Yosemite....by a large margin, is the most unenjoyable venue i use in regards to camping. Something should be done.
Culture....be it a corporation, small business, non profit, or National Park is set by those in charge.

Word!

I hope you read this and take it heart, Superintendent Don Neubacher. These are people YOU are responsible for supervising. The buck stops with you.

I've never been tooled in Yosemite. I've never even been cited. I think that's probably because I try to follow the rules and am very respectful to LEO's, even when they aren't acting in ways that earn respect. I have to agree with Jim Donini. I've met Yosemite rangers who are reasonable and professional, but from what I've seen, the majority are as#@&%es who shouldn't be working as LEO's, either in Yosemite or anywhere else. Worst group of LEO's in any park or city that I've visited.

Yosemite deserves better.



Don Neubacher,
Superintendent of Yosemite National Park

Gnome Ofthe Diabase

climber
Out Of Bed
Nov 12, 2014 - 10:13pm PT
Thank You Graniteclimber & Jingy
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
Nov 12, 2014 - 10:13pm PT
failure to provide the ID to the investigating officers upon demand is technically a crime, regardless of preceding events.
This is not true, at least in CA (maybe in a federal jurisdiction but I doubt it.)

This isn't a crime anywhere in the U.S. If you are driving a vehicle, for which you need a license, you need to produce the license. But otherwise, there is no required federal or state ID.

If you do NOT produce ID, the police have much greater latitude to detain you until they can ascertain who you are, but they cannot charge you for any crime for not having or producing an ID. (Again, not producing a driver's license if you've been driving a vehicle is different...)
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
Nov 12, 2014 - 10:20pm PT
http://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140822827.xml/MAZZETTI%20v.%20BELLINO


FACTUAL BACKGROUND3

From the FAC, on July 26, 2011, Mazzetti was in a Yosemite National Park campground with friends. Yosemite National Park rangers approached Mazzetti's campground to address complaints that someone had been driving a vehicle too quickly through the campground and acting disrespectfully. The rangers had information that those who had been driving too quickly and acting disrespectfully were all males. Mazzetti is a female. When the rangers approached the campsite, there was no indication of criminal behavior or disorderly conduct, and Mazzetti and her friends were calm.

Ranger Defendants Christopher Bellino ("Bellino") and David Sanchez ("Sanchez") rounded up Mazzetti and her friends around a picnic table, questioned the group about the conduct being investigated, told the group that they were not free to leave and threatened to use handcuffs. Within minutes, a male member of the group admitted to being the driver of the vehicle. Mazzetti advised the rangers that she had just walked up from the river, she had not been in the vehicle, and that she did not wish to participate in the investigation. The rangers ordered her to sit down. Bellino then asked for identification, but when Mazzetti got up to go get her identification, she was grabbed by Bellino and Sanchez.4 Bellino threatened to handcuff Mazzetti, pulled a Taser, and threatened to use the Taser against her.

Other park rangers began to arrive on the scene, including Ranger Smith and Defendant Ranger Brendan Bonner ("Bonner"). The rangers spread out around the campsite to keep Mazzetti and her friends from leaving. The rangers physically and verbally threatened Mazzetti to keep her from leaving the picnic area. The rangers had no reasonable suspicion that Mazzetti had engaged in any criminal conduct, and the behavior that the rangers were investigating had ceased and was no longer a threat to anyone.

An audio-video recording of the incident made by a Park Ranger shows that Bellino conferenced with Bonner sometime after Bellino had threatened Mazzetti with a Taser. It can be heard that Bellino described Mazzetti as "uncooperative," and when asked if he was going to arrest her, Bellino responded that he was going to do something but that he did not yet know what. Bonner asked if Mazzetti had since been cooperative, and Bellino said that she had been "cooperative since." Bellino and Bonner then agreed to arrest Mazzetti and take her to jail.

The rangers reapproached Mazzetti and her friends, segregated Mazzetti, and walked her over near a ranger's vehicle. Bellino, Bonner, and Ranger Hastings physically restrained and handcuffed Mazzetti. Mazzetti verbally protested being handcuffed and asked "why are you arresting me?", but she did not physically resist. Mazzetti was wearing shorts, a bathing suit top, and a loose fitting t-shirt that had its sleeves cut off. Hastings was sent back to watch the other members of Mazzetti's group at the campsite. Bellino then asked Bonner if there was a female ranger on duty, and Bonner responded that one would be on duty shortly. Bellino and Bonner then moved Mazzetti again. According to the video, these rangers moved Mazzetti in order to "do a search behind the vehicle."

Mazzetti was walked to the other side of the ranger's vehicle so that she was out of view from her friends. Bellino and Bonner then began to taunt and touch Mazzetti. They began poking in her hair with a pen-like object, and running their hands through her hair. Bellino then told Mazzetti, "I have to search your breasts." Mazzetti told them not to search her breasts and complained that the rangers were hurting her. Mazzetti was placed in a stress-hold, and Bellino and Bonner then groped Mazzetti's breasts. Mazzetti screamed for assistance and to make the rangers stop, and also kept screaming "stop hurting me." Bellino told Mazzetti that he was going to search her groin area. Mazzetti was then taken to the ground. The video shows Bellino and Bonner grabbing Mazzetti's bare knees and prying her legs apart so that they could touch her groin. Mazzetti screamed in protest and pain. Bellino and Bonner removed Mazzetti's shoes, and then locked Mazzetti in the back of the ranger vehicle. Mazzetti screamed to be released. Bellino and Bonner had singled out Mazzetti, "attacked and humiliated her, groped on her breasts, groped on her groin, and sexually assaulted and battered [Mazzetti] . . . because of her gender." FAC ¶ 56.

While Mazzetti was screaming for help, Sanchez, Hastings, and Smith kept Mazzetti's friends away from her. Mazzetti's friends pleaded with the three rangers to help Mazzetti. The three rangers witnessed what was happening to Mazzetti, but did nothing reasonable to prevent the violation of Mazzetti's rights. The rangers also sent away potential witnesses.

Mazzetti was taken to jail, where she was forced to stay the night. Mazzetti was released the next day.

Bellino, Bonner, and Sanchez drafted false and misleading reports, failed to provide exculpatory information, and failed to identify witnesses who could support Mazzetti's version of events, even though the rangers had such information. Bellino recommended charging Mazzetti with violations of 36 C.F.R. 2.32(a)(1) (interference), 36 CFR 2.32(a)(2) (failing to obey a lawful order), 36 CFR 2.34(a)(2) (disorderly conduct), and 36 CFR 2.34(a)(3) (unreasonable noise). Based upon the rangers' reports, Mazzetti was charged with and prosecuted for violations of the above Class B misdemeanors.

A bench trial was conducted before Magistrate Judge Seng. Magistrate Judge Seng ruled that the rangers had no reasonable suspicion to stop Mazzetti and that Mazzetti was unlawfully arrested, that Mazzetti's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, that there was no grounds for threatening Mazzetti with force, and that Mazzetti had engaged in constitutionally protected speech. Magistrate Judge Seng acquitted Mazzetti of all charges except for a violation of 36 CFR 2.34(a)(3), based on Mazzetti's continued screaming after she had been placed in the rangers' vehicle. However, on appeal, the U.S. Attorney dismissed the 2.34(a)(3) charge against Mazzetti.
bluegreyguy

climber
sf, ca
Nov 13, 2014 - 09:46am PT
I wonder if there's a way to reach out to the Secretary of the Interior and ask for additional attention/oversight for this issue. As a frequent user of National Parks, it seems like the current Secretary might be interested in improving the LEO-visitor dynamic than previous that may have come from an oil and gas background. I concur with others' experience and have had needlessly terrible interactions with LEOs that were so aggressive with me for no reason! I remember thinking that Rangers were so nice when I was a kid but in Yosemite its horrible!! http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/secretaryjewell.cfm

Edit: I wonder if someone at the Access Fund would be interested in helping with this. Maybe a class-action lawsuit of Vistors Vs. The National Park Service? I just read about one filed by a disability-focused non profit against the park service in SF.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 13, 2014 - 10:45am PT
well, did she have a gun in her vagina???

No kidding. What were they searching her groin and breasts for? Obviously not weapons. My guess is that they were looking for drugs. Then it would have gone down differently. What was their probable cause, though? It sounds like she was scantily dressed.

Cops have to interact constantly with the public, and when they get called out, there is usually some kind of drama going on. They have to remain disciplined. If they can't, then fire them.

In this case, if any of you were physically doing those things to that woman, you would be rapidly convicted of sexual assault, do 5 to 10 years in federal prison, and then have to inform your neighbors that you were a sex criminal for the rest of your lives.

They should have waited for a female ranger in that type of search, but they didn't have probable cause to search in the first place.

This is the number one problem that I hear of in Yosemite. The rangers invent probable cause out of thin air and then search you or your vehicle.

The 4th amendment is my pet peeve, and cops can't search you without probable cause. The constitution and 200 years of case law make that very clear.

I know guys who have been busted for weed stemming from bogus searches in Yosemite. Food looking something or Tupperware something (which ended up not containing food) bogus in their car. They use that law, intended to lower the car/bear problems, as a crack in probable cause problem; to get away from an unlawful search. Cops are always inventing probable cause, and they get away with it. Hopefully dash cams and other video will start to limit this.

That said, I was a very wanted man for much of a year in Yosemite for BASE jumping out of Camp 4 and the SAR site. They never knew my name, but they knew that I existed. I can admit it because the statute of limitations on that year ended decades ago. I have some great stories, though.

I was, and remain, totally paranoid of cops. I'm always very careful not to fall into their radar range. I've never been seriously hassled in Yosemite, but I did see a cop lie in traffic court when I was 16, and then again a few years ago. I never looked at cops the same after that. Of course, the federal prosecutor in Yosemite, or the DA where I live, try the cases that the cops bring them. They are often complicit.

I am lucky that my town has its own police academy, and they are high quality cops. I like our cops. They do a good job and I can't remember a problem with one.
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
Nov 13, 2014 - 11:31am PT
they didn't have probable cause to search in the first place.

Read the decision from the criminal trial. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cr-00288/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cr-00288-0.pdf

They didn't need probable cause to search her because she'd already been arrested. After they arrest you they can search you--they don't need probably cause.

The judge determined that the arrest was "unlawful" and that is why she was not convicted of resisting arrest. The judge decided that there was a right to resist unlawful arrest.

What were they searching her groin and breasts for? Obviously not weapons. My guess is that they were looking for drugs. Then it would have gone down differently. What was their probable cause, though? It sounds like she was scantily dressed.

Cops have to interact constantly with the public, and when they get called out, there is usually some kind of drama going on. They have to remain disciplined. If they can't, then fire them.

In this case, if any of you were physically doing those things to that woman, you would be rapidly convicted of sexual assault, do 5 to 10 years in federal prison, and then have to inform your neighbors that you were a sex criminal for the rest of your lives.

They should have waited for a female ranger in that type of search, but they didn't have probable cause to search in the first place.


If you ask me, it was sexual assault pure and simple.
Phantom X

Trad climber
Honeycomb Hideout
Nov 13, 2014 - 01:07pm PT
On behalf of the horny rangers, their actions are accepted government procedure for dating she-bears. True.
Dapper Dan

Trad climber
Menlo Park
Nov 13, 2014 - 03:01pm PT
so a video of the incident exists ? where is it ?
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
Nov 13, 2014 - 03:18pm PT
2. Unreasonable Noise

Defendant was also charged with making unreasonable noise. The relevant subsection states:

(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy or violence, or knowingly or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person commits any of the following prohibited acts:

(3) Makes noise that is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. 36 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(3).

The briefing of neither party identifies the particular conduct giving rise to alleged violation of this regulation. The Court will assume the charge is leveled at Defendant's conduct during and following the search incident to arrest in which Defendant continuously screamed in protest.

The subsection appears to be a facially valid, content-neutral, time, place, and manner restriction. See Rosenbaum v. City & County of San Francisco, 484 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendant has not challenged its constitutional validity nor suggested that the Court should refuse to apply it to the facts of the case at hand.

With regard to location and time of day, one reasonably would expect relatively loud noise in a campsite during the day from, for example, music, singing, game playing, generators, etc. See e.g., 36 C.F.R. §§ 2.10, 2.12 (noise up to 60 decibels is acceptable, unless during quiet hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). There is nothing about the location or time of day that would create a need for heightened restriction of noise.

It is significant here that noise was made at a time when Defendant was being subjected to an unlawful arrest. Also, as noted, Defendant testified to a not insignificant history of abuse and reacted to what she perceived as a sexual assault by a federal law enforcement agent. (RT 118-19.) It is difficult to determine how a reasonable person should react to such circumstances; screaming may well have been an appropriate response. On the other hand, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that the screams were designed solely to disrupt and/or discourage the search. The fact they continued long after the search ended is at least an indication of such a calculated objective. However, that possibility is insufficient to support a finding of guilt. Considering all of the circumstances, the Court cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant's verbal response to the search was unreasonable or unlawful.

However, Defendant continues what might be described as blood-curdling screams for a significant period of time long after the search was completed. The screams continued at a time when she was isolated in a vehicle and no longer suffering the assault which initiated her vocal reaction. While the Court gives Defendant the benefit of the doubt in finding her initial reaction to have been spontaneous and perhaps irrepressible for her and not violative of the law, it cannot do the same to the continuation of the screaming. The circumstances and the audio recording convince the Court that the continued screaming had, and served, no purpose other than intentionally to disrupt. It was loud enough even from inside the Ranger's vehicle to accomplish such disruption and violate the regulation. Defendant is guilty of having violated 36 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(3).

U.S. Magistrate Seng:

It's OK to scream really loud if you are a young woman being unlawfully arrested and having your breasts and vaginal area groped, and especially if it is during the daytime and you have been abused in the past.

But if you keep screaming after they do all of that, handcuff you and lock you in a patrol car and leave you there, then "beyond a reasonable doubt" you are committing a crime and deserve to be punished.

Really? That does not make any sense to me. It's a flaw in what is otherwise is a courageous opinion.

We need more judges like this man. I hope he remains in Yosemite for a long time.

U.S. Magistrate Michael J. Seng
Yosemite Courthouse




Federal Judicial Service:

U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Appointed United States Magistrate Judge on April 2, 2010

Education:
University of Tennessee School of Business, B.A., 1969
University of Tennessee College of Law, J.D., 1975

Professional Career:

1971-1973
United States Army

1975-1978
Staff Attorney, U.S. DHEW, SSA, OHA, Fresno, CA

1978-2008
Civil Litigation (attorney/partner/director), Blumberg, Sherr & Kerkorian (and its successors); Farley, Seng, DeSantos & Green; and Seng & Stratton, Fresno, CA

2008-2010
U.S. Administrative Law Judge, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Sacramento

Biography:

Michael J. Seng was appointed a Magistrate Judge on April 2, 2010, after having practiced as a civil litigator for thirty years and then as a Federal Administrative Law Judge for two years. In his four years on the Eastern District Court bench he has presided over multiple civil jury trials and several criminal court trials and decided many case-dispositive motions while also tackling and resolving complex constitutional and habeas corpus issues.

From 1978 until 2008 Judge Seng practiced as a partner in three successive Fresno firms bearing his name. He represented both plaintiffs and defendants. His practice focused on litigation and trial of complex business, banking, professional liability, crop loss and personal injury litigation. The “case-within-a-case” nature of his legal malpractice practice necessitated his gaining broadly diverse expertise in many different legal fields. He also served as a Judge Pro Temp, Mediator and Arbitrator for the Fresno County Superior Court.

While serving as an Administrative Law Judge with the Sacramento Office of Disability Adjudication and Review from early 2008 until spring 2010, Judge Seng adjudicated approximately 1000 medical/disability cases.

Judge Seng previously served as an Adjunct Professor of Professional Responsibility at the San Joaquin College of Law and taught Civil Procedure to paralegals at the College. He has lectured and written extensively on professional liability issues. He has served as a California State Bar Court Probation Monitor and as Special Counsel (Prosecutor) with the State Bar Court.

Judge Seng is a graduate of the University of Tennessee School of Business (1969) and the University of Tennessee College of Law (1975). He served in the United States Army from 1971 to 1973.

Parties are invited to present their motions and cases to Judge Seng in the Fresno courthouse or, at the litigants’ option, in our unique and very accommodating Yosemite Valley courthouse.

 See more at: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5023/united-states-magistrate-judge-michael-j-seng-mjs/#sthash.yZUJNErD.dpuf
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Nov 13, 2014 - 04:55pm PT
U.S. Magistrate Seng:

It's OK to scream really loud if you are a young woman being unlawfully arrested and having your breasts and vaginal area groped, and especially if it is during the daytime and you have been abused in the past.

But if you keep screaming after they do all of that, handcuff you and lock you in a patrol car and leave you there, then "beyond a reasonable doubt" you are committing a crime and deserve to be punished.

Really? That does not make any sense to me. It's a flaw in what is otherwise is a courageous opinion.

We need more judges like this man. I hope he remains in Yosemite for a long time.

Yes, fascinating. It's hard to fault the judge too much since he seemed to, for the most part, do the right thing.
But the part of his decision about upholding the unreasonable noise seems more than just wrong, it seems outrageous. What can you say--some of these things are just weird personal idiosyncrasies.

Not to defend the US legal system too much, but at least we have various types of "checks and balances" (some combination of appellate review and prosecutorial discretion).

Here is what I what like to know:
Upon a judicial finding that the arrest was illegal, why weren't the LEOs charged with some sort of crime (assault, perhaps other things)?
Perhaps LEOs have immunity if their actions are "illegal," but not too illegal (I have no idea and am just making that up).

Has this been raised with the US Attorney by the press or any "concerned citizens"?
Our former AG Eric Holder apparently thinks it's a good idea to send swarms of federal investigators to Ferguson to "investigate" something that may not be a crime at all, and when there's no strong reason to believe that the local authorities weren't dealing with it.
It's possible there is a legitimate reason, but the failure to file criminal charges against the LEOs seems very troubling.
(Remember the current suit is a civil suit, which is fine, but isn't an entirely satisfactory substitute for criminal charges).
graniteclimber

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
Nov 13, 2014 - 06:03pm PT
Yes, fascinating. It's hard to fault the judge too much since he seemed to, for the most part, do the right thing.
But the part of his decision about upholding the unreasonable noise seems more than just wrong, it seems outrageous. What can you say--some of these things are just weird personal idiosyncrasies.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this. The rest of the decision is very reasonable, but that one part seemed weird and outrageous. If before the trial, I'd had to bet on which count she was least likely to be convicted of, it would be this one.

Here is what I what like to know:
Upon a judicial finding that the arrest was illegal, why weren't the LEOs charged with some sort of crime (assault, perhaps other things)?
Perhaps LEOs have immunity if their actions are "illegal," but not too illegal (I have no idea and am just making that up).

Several reasons: 1. There must making an inadvertent mistake can make the arrest "illegal" so just the fact that they screwed up doesn't mean that they committed a crime. 2. Even if they did act maliciously and arrest her on illegally on purpose (not making a "mistake"), it's hard to prove what their intent is. 3. The prosecutors work very closely with the LEO agencies, see themselves as being on the "same team", and want to maintain a good relationship with them. So they are very reluctant to prosecute cops, unless they have to for political reasons. So even where it is obvious just about everyone else that a crime was committed, they will claim that there is insufficient evidence or whatever -- even if it's something that they would prosecute if it was anyone other then a cop.

Go to youtube and you can see lots of videos of cops blatantly violating the law. Almost none of them are ever prosecuted or even fired. It's usually only when the victims sue in civil court that there are any consequences, but there the LEO agencies just end up paying millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money to the victims in verdicts or settlements, and nothing else changes.
wheatBeer

Social climber
TheBronx
Nov 14, 2014 - 03:42pm PT
Rangers are just getting in to a heap of trouble with visitors in CA.

The good ol boy system is still alive and well. The judge, DA, cops, etc.

Michelle is "had to be charged and found guilty of something".

Dominic's arresting ranger was "From our review of the circumstances surrounding the detention of Mr. Esquibel, it appears that the officer’s actions were reasonable."

Riiiight, how are any of these arrests and actions reasonable.

wheatBeer

Social climber
TheBronx
Nov 15, 2016 - 07:32pm PT
Looks like the rangers got a break..... again. Michelle probably had to stop the case over money and time it takes to keep a lawsuit going.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01123
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 15, 2016 - 07:56pm PT
It's tough to outwait the gubmint. They also don't have to play nice. In the US vs Me the puppet judge would not admit my evidence from Cornell University "because the defendant has not established the veracity of the evidence." Right, one of the world's leading ornithologists has to be 'OK'd' by some corrupt New Mexican judge?
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Nov 16, 2016 - 08:28am PT
Failing that, I'd like to figure out some kind of legal challenge to the prohibition on (free) backcountry camping.

There's a prohibition on backcountry camping? I've done a lot of free backcountry camping at Yosenmite.
Messages 41 - 60 of total 77 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta