Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My buddies and I were driving around our neighborhood and one of my friends wanted to smoke. So we drive around until we find an awning so he can smoke under since it was raining. It ended up being school property and cop pulls up and gives us tickets for "unauthorized person on school property." This took place around 11:30 at night. He frisked everyone of us also. None of us had any idea it was illegal to be there at that time and when i went there the next day to see if there were any signs i saw that there was not a single sign in the whole area telling us we could not be there. Also, they have a gate that was left completely open. I'm not sure if i should plead guilty with an explanation or if i should plead not guilty on the grounds that we did not know it was illegal.

Any opinions?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,058 Posts
Regardless if the gate is open, in the US you are not allowed to smoke on school grounds to begin with. As for the unauthorized you have to view the laws for your state if in the US. Just cause there isn't a sign doesn't mean your allows to do it. Your not allowed to kill someone with no cause in the US but we don't have signs for those.

http://aapnews.aappublications.org/c...stract/10/6/11

Quote:
Education law requires school smoking ban
AAP Department of Government Liaison

A new law will require public and private schools receiving federal money to ban smoking from their premises.

The smoking provision within the "Goals 2000, Educate America Act" (P.L. 103-227) also applies to federally funded Head Start centers, day-care centers and community health centers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,058 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by macca_dj View Post
Fight it i would, unless it was a known common law ( but obviously it wasnt because you didnt know ) then it sounds like you have a good argument, Take some pics of the place so you have evidence to back you up just in case they stick some signs up in the future ,?
And if he does fight it he would have to pay court fines along with the ticket and maybe other fees as well if he looses. Again just cause there isn't a sign doesn't mean there isn't a state law in effect. He would have to research his state law first before going to court.

In NJ you are allowed to make a right on red. But there is only a handful of places where that sign is. The places you can't make a right on red, there is a sign.

As converse to NYC you are NOT allowed to make a right on red unless noted by a sign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
You actually are allowed to smoke on school property on days when school is not in session and after 6 on days when school is. So your wrong there. And also because of the supreme court case Lambert vs California you cannot be charged with a crime that you did not knowingly commit. So your point about committing murder is completely irrelevant.

Quote:
This law does not apply to outdoor areas including, but not limited to an
open-air stadium, during either of the following periods:
− Saturdays, Sundays, and other days on which there are no regularly
scheduled school hours.
After 6 p.m. on days during which there are regularly scheduled school hours.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,058 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by vp29 View Post
You actually are allowed to smoke on school property on days when school is not in session and after 6 on days when school is. So your wrong there. And also because of the supreme court case Lambert vs California you cannot be charged with a crime that you did not knowingly commit. So your point about committing murder is completely irrelevant.
So by your logic I could go to NYC and make a right on red and plead to the court I didn't know.The murder thing was an example to show that there doesn't have to be a sign for a law to be in effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Quote:

Originally Posted by gex80 View Post
So by your logic I could go to NYC and make a right on red and plead to the court I didn't know.
If you had no prior knowledge of it being illegal to do so you could potentially have a case for it being thrown out

Quote:
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the acceptability of ignorance of the law as an excuse for a crime. The court held that in order to be punished, there must be a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by gex80 View Post
So by your logic I could go to NYC and make a right on red and plead to the court I didn't know.The murder thing was an example to show that there doesn't have to be a sign for a law to be in effect.
Yeah, I don't know about that one Vp. I'm inclined to agree with Gex.

Not knowing something is illegal is never a valid excuse for breaking the law. Try explaining it to the officer or in court and you'll get slammed.

The gate being open is a moot point, and as Gex said (and beat me to linking), there are the school premises anti-smoking laws (which should be pretty well-known).

I wouldn't fight it simply on the grounds that it wouldn't be worth the time/effort, and the fact that considering all of the above you wouldn't likely change the outcome anyway. Luckily it's a minor charge.

Chalk it up as a lesson learned, and stay clean so you can expunge the conviction at a later date.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,058 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by vp29 View Post
If you had no prior knowledge of it being illegal to do so you could potentially have a case for it being thrown out
Just cause there is a precedence does not mean that is the official ruling and that every case after that must follow that rule. Precedence are more like guidelines they are not law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Quote:

Originally Posted by sn0man View Post
Yeah, I don't know about that one Vp. I'm inclined to agree with Gex.

Not knowing something is illegal is never a valid excuse for breaking the law. Try explaining it to the officer or in court and you'll get slammed.

The gate being open is a moot point, and as Gex said (and beat me to linking), there are the school premises anti-smoking laws (which should be pretty well-known).

I wouldn't fight it simply on the grounds that it wouldn't be worth the time/effort, and the fact that considering all of the above you wouldn't likely change the outcome anyway. Luckily it's a minor charge.

Chalk it up as a lesson learned, and stay clean so you can expunge the conviction at a later date.
The cop never actually saw him smoking so the smoking point is irrelevant and was only in there to provide you the reason we were there. A local court cannot go against a supreme court decision and therefore would have to accept the Lambert vs California ruling that i have posted above

As the supreme court has said in the Edgar v. Mite Corporation ruling

Quote:
A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.
A state cannot go against federal rulings
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,534 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by vp29 View Post
If you had no prior knowledge of it being illegal to do so you could potentially have a case for it being thrown out
Claiming ignorance/stupidity isn't going to make them drop any charges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Quote:

Originally Posted by ljason8eg View Post
Claiming ignorance/stupidity isn't going to make them drop any charges.
Again, if you had read the ruling of the Lambert vs California case you would see that ignorance has worked before and has set a precedent. You cannot be expected to know the city ordinances of a city that you do not even live in.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,058 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by vp29 View Post
The cop never actually saw him smoking so the smoking point is irrelevant and was only in there to provide you the reason we were there. A local court cannot go against a supreme court decision and therefore would have to accept the Lambert vs California ruling that i have posted above

As the supreme court has said in the Edgar v. Mite Corporation ruling A state cannot go against federal rulings
No precedence in courts are not law. They are not overruling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vp29 View Post
Again, if you had read the ruling of the Lambert vs California case you would see that ignorance has worked before and has set a precedent. You cannot be expected to know the city ordinances of a city that you do not even live in.
So that means this would have had to happen outside the state that you live in. You did not tell us what state you live in and if you were out of state or not. That precedence would follow through as a guideline if you were out of state. If you were in state that ruling would have no influence since as a resident you are suppose to know your local laws.

Even then precedence only apply to particular situations. Assuming you are in the state where this happened and the case you keep bringing up was with a person from another state they are not similar cases.

EDIT: I just re-read the first post. It happened in your local area. So there for as a resident of that state you are expected to know your local laws.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by vp29 View Post
Again, if you had read the ruling of the Lambert vs California case you would see that ignorance has worked before and has set a precedent. You cannot be expected to know the city ordinances of a city that you do not even live in.
You asked for opinions and you're getting them. If you don't like what the responses are, you probably shouldn't have asked.

If you were smarter, you wouldn't have put yourself in a situation where any of this would matter regardless.

If you're so well-versed in the law, then you could have easily talked your way out of this one and avoided the tickets altogether.

If you've got the entire Supreme Court behind you, then there's no reason for all of this unfounded worry - because surely your praises will be sung in court when you represent yourself and bring all this up to the judge.

I'm guessing you'll be found guilty.
Go ahead and let us know if it turns out otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Courts use precedents from other court cases to create rulings on similar cases. and i was not outside my state i was outside my city and i broke a city ordinance not a state law. So i would not be expected to know it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,058 Posts
In the state of NJ I didn't know this was a law

Quote:
Automobiles are not to pass horse drawn carriages on the street.
But if I do it and a cop sees me. They legally have to give me a ticket regardless if I knew or didn't know the offense.

Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Quote:

Originally Posted by gex80 View Post
In the state of NJ I didn't know this was a law

But if I do it and a cop sees me. They legally have to give me a ticket regardless if I knew or didn't know the offense.

Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law.
I am not denying that they can give you a ticket but i am saying that it has a high chance to be thrown out in court.

Why would anyone assume a public school would be illegal to go near when it is on public property
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,058 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by vp29
View Post

Courts use precedents from other court cases to create rulings on similar cases. and i was not outside my state i was outside my city and i broke a city ordinance not a state law. So i would not be expected to know it.

But again it is up to the judge. They have the right to not give you the same ruling. Precedence != Law. It is only a guideline on where to start with the case, not how the case ends. Also her case was her VS the state of CA. You would be doing a local city court. They will rule against you and then you will have to take it to state which then they may side with you(doubt it)and then federal which is what she did.

And do you know it was only a city ordinance or a state wide law? You have to be able to prove that in court, they aren't going to just take your word for it. It's you vs a cop, the court sides with cops 98% of the time.

So technically bringing up that ruling in court would do nothing for you since it was more of an interstate case( being she was from another state) rather than a state/city case.

Same thing applies to gun laws. A gun law in one state does not apply to other states. I can get my license to carry in one state, but there are states that do not recognize other states laws and require you to have a license for that state regardless if you have one from another state or not.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top