Ticket for Being in a Park Afer Hours

My question involves criminal law for the state of: New Jersey

Hello everyone,

So I was charged with being in a park after hours for which I received a ticket.

The thing is though, there were FIVE other people who happened to be in the park after hours at the exact same time and every one of them received just a warning while I was the only one who received a ticket.

What's more, it was apparent that these five people were guilty of the following things in addition to being in the park after hours:

1) They had a vehicle parked on the park grounds after hours

2) They literally came towards the officers from an area that's blocked off not only by a fence with a three signs in plain view on it that say "Restricted Area", "Notice Authorized Personnel Only", and "Private Property Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted To The Full Extent Of The Law", respectfully.

3) They were apparently violating a noise ordinance (this is apparently why the police were called to the scene in the first place; apparently somebody complained about noise and I definitely was not the one making the noise)

So that makes up to four things that the other five people could have been charged with: being in the park after hours, illegal parking, criminal trespassing through the restricted area, and violating a noise ordinance. Yet despite these potential charges they were all let go with a warning while, I being charged with only one of those things, was the only one given an actual ticket.

The officer who issued the ticket told me that they had been given just a warning because, and I quote, "because they were nice." I did not believe I was being disrespectful though and if I was it wasn't intentional; I just asked if I was being detained more than once (and this is because I did not receive an answer the first time).

I believe this statement of the officer demonstrates bias on his part since I have never had any previous charges for anything at all. There is more to this story, but I'll end here for the sake of brevity.

Anyway, the prosecutor gave me the option to meet with the officer to discuss why he gave the ticket. When I asked the prosecutor, he said that it's a possibility that the ticket could be dropped if the officer agreed.

What advice can you give on this situation? How can I convince the officer who gave the ticket to dismiss the case if that's really a possibility?

Thank you.

Without knowing the more to the story and if there are other factors in play, we can't offer you much. Unless his bias was based on illegal discrimination, he is free to cite/not cite whomever he chooses and owes you no explanation.

You cannot convince the officer to dismiss, you can ask nicely. That is the extent of your options.

Most police officers make the decision whether or not to cite/arrest for relatively minor offenses based on one simple question. That question is: “Will this person respond to a verbal warning by modifying their behavior and refrain from further unlawful acts, at least for the immediate future?” They decide the answer to that question based on the person’s attitude, demeanor, statements, and overall appearance. If the answer is “yes,” the let the issue go with a warning. Why would a cop make extra work for themselves (writing the citation, writing the report for the prosecutor, potentially having to testify in court) if he or she thought a warning would solve the problem? The thought in their head may be, “This guy is a jerk,” and they may refer to the cite as an “attitude cite.” But, what that really boils down to is the cop concluded that a warning was not going to have the desired effect on the person being contacted.

Now, you say you did not “believe” you were being disrespectful. But, it should be pretty obvious to most reasonably intelligent people whether a cop is detaining them for unlawful behavior (actual or perceived) or just speaking to them to be sociable. So, when you ask (which you say you did repeatedly), “Am I being detained,” in my experience, what the cop is going to hear is, “I think I’m smarter than you, I think I know the law and your job better than you do, I believe that you are illegally detaining me, and I want you to verbally acknowledge that you are detaining me so that I can use it against you in court.” That is a pretty disrespectful idea to communicate to a cop, or anyone else. Such an impression will almost always lead to the cop’s conclusion of, “a warning aint gonna cut it.”

Quote:

---

Quoting PTPD22

---

So, when you ask (which you say you did repeatedly), “Am I being detained,” in my experience, what the cop is going to hear is, “I think I’m smarter than you, I think I know the law and your job better than you do, I believe that you are illegally detaining me, and I want you to verbally acknowledge that you are detaining me so that I can use it against you in court.” That is a pretty disrespectful idea to communicate to a cop, or anyone else. Such an impression will almost always lead to the cop’s conclusion of, “a warning aint gonna cut it.”

---

Asking "Am I being detained?" is the legal advice that every lawyer gives.

Besides, you cops are always INTENTIONALLY blurring the line between being detaining people and being sociable. You never clearly communicate whether people are being detained and whether people can leave.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Asking "Am I being detained?" is the legal advice that every lawyer gives.

Besides, you cops are always INTENTIONALLY blurring the line between being detaining people and being sociable. You never clearly communicate whether people are being detained and whether people can leave.

---

You sure do like terms that are in the absolute, don't you. The problem with such terms as "always" and "never" is that they can easily be demonstrated as FALSE, since even if all cops were crooked, it is simply not possible for all of them to "always" intentionally blur the line between detention and consensual. Likewise, many officers DO "clearly communicate" to a person whether they are being detained or whether the conversation is consensual ... not that they necessarily have to do that, anyway.

If the officer orders you to stop or tells you to come to him, it's a detention. If he walks up and starts chatting, that's a consensual encounter. Asking if you are detained is fine. When the officer answers, there's no need to keep asking it. I have had people (usually inebriated) ask that question repeatedly, and when I say they ARE detained, they then start telling me I can't detain them ... oy.

Your statements using "always" and "never" are demonstrably false since *I* have personally contradicted those statements you have made.

Your anti-police bias is, once again, clearly showing. For whatever reason, you seem to have a problem with police.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Likewise, many officers DO "clearly communicate" to a person whether they are being detained or whether the conversation is consensual ... not that they necessarily have to do that, anyway.

---

And why do the police NOT have to clearly communicate? Why are police allowed to "trick" people?

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

And why do the police NOT have to clearly communicate? Why are police allowed to "trick" people?

---

It's hardly "a trick." If the police order you to stop or stay, you are detained. If they walk up and start asking general questions without such an order, it is most likely a consensual contact. The law does not require that officers offer full disclosure at the scene of every contact.

Carl, I feel your frustration – I fell for it too. But, I have stopped even responding to this troll. As I alluded to in my reply to OP, TechWorker is obviously convinced that he is smarter, more knowledgeable about the law, has the moral high ground, and knows our jobs better than we do. Nothing, not arrest, conviction in court in spite of his superior legal arguments, fines, incarceration, etc., will ever convince him he is as ignorant (and, frankly, simply stupid) as he repeatedly shows himself to be. He is right, the whole rest of the world is wrong, and no amount of explanation, education, facts, or documented proof to the contrary will ever change his opinion on that.

Oh, I know, but it frosts me to give a guy like that "the last word."

I miss the BanHammer of Tender Enlightenment.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I miss the BanHammer of Tender Enlightenment.

---

Did someone lose it?

Haven't seen it around lately.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Haven't seen it around lately.

---

Missy was the one I normally saw swinging it. Maybe she still has it in her closet?

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

And why do the police NOT have to clearly communicate? Why are police allowed to "trick" people?

---

Do you have nothing better to do than troll this page? Nothing you have ever posted on here is factual or legitimate.

In fact this is what I think about every time I see you post: https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c