Pa State Parks

[NYCgrrl]

Re: Pa State Parks

This forum is too small to let that attitude go unchecked. It's nice having new people join and start sharing their love of camping. The moderation period and occasional delays with that end up losing some potentially nice folks - we don't need to insult the ones who stick it out and chase them away because one person can't show respect to others.

HullOOooooo and amen!
Not to mention the monotonous aspect of it.
Stating an opinion without sneering is a thing of beauty.

[davidpa28140]

Re: Pa State Parks

Sorry for the delay posting here folks, I'm looking forward to communicating with you, just waiting on approval from the moderators,( I'm new here)

[NYCgrrl]

Re: Pa State Parks

They don't teach tact and diplomacy in engineering school.

If they do some forgot what they learned.

I've had kids that suffered from that issue from time to time.

[MountainMama]

Re: Pa State Parks

This forum is too small to let that attitude go unchecked. It's nice having new people join and start sharing their love of camping. The moderation period and occasional delays with that end up losing some potentially nice folks - we don't need to insult the ones who stick it out and chase them away because one person can't show respect to others.

True. Respect for others is usually a given among campers.

[Manduke]

Re: Pa State Parks

I'm under the impression most states have a rule about not having alcohol inside state parks, i know new jersey and PA do. (grew up in new jersey,) Though personally I don't camp inside the grounds, as I live in my conversion van, and dont require hook ups or even a fire pit. Though i do go into the parks, because i paint, hike, draw, and kayak inside of them, and most of the state parks are the best places to do those things. I recently spent time in Schuylkill county, and Coal County, where i camped in Jim Thorpe, so that i could go to the Lehigh gorge, Onoko Glen, and locust lake state park (which is fairly close.) there's a lot more i want to do around there, but as the weather is changing, I'm heading south.

here's a playlist of my experiences in Pennsylvania
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...95JpofMynQRiri

[davidpa28140]

Re: Pa State Parks

Calm conversation should be attainable even when folks disagree. It's unfortunate this thread took a turn that made hard feelings, the original topic is still one I am working through with the Pa State Representatives and feel passionate about as my family is unwilling to go back to our great state parks after this experience..

[tplife]

Re: Pa State Parks

This forum is too small to let that attitude go unchecked. It's nice having new people join and start sharing their love of camping. The moderation period and occasional delays with that end up losing some potentially nice folks - we don't need to insult the ones who stick it out and chase them away because one person can't show respect to others.

Please accept my apologies that in explaining our state laws, you felt somehow insulted. That wasn't my intention at all, but the correct understanding of those regulations and rights are critical to us as sportsmen here in California. I am sorry that you had a problem with that.

[davidpa28140]

Re: Pa State Parks

I thank you for informing me of your state laws, it is helpful to see accepted practices elsewhere. Unfortunately the laws concerning a Ranger or park staffs authority to without warrant and without "probable cause" intimidate and rummage through visitors personal belongs remains a mystery here in PA . It appears to me the acceptable procedure changes from park to park. My hopes are to return to the parks someday with a knowledge of both what is expected of me as a visitor and what I can expect from staff….


To be fair I've never had anything happen like this in a state park in 30 plus years, so this was most likely a case of a few bad apples...But the unwillingness of the Bureau of State Parks or the parks manager to specifically address the issue and to offer specific guidelines on acceptable practices of staff makes me gravely concerned for the future of the Pa State Parks and my rights as a citizen.

[toedtoes]

Re: Pa State Parks

Please accept my apologies that in explaining our state laws, you felt somehow insulted. That wasn't my intention at all, but the correct understanding of those regulations and rights are critical to us as sportsmen here in California. I am sorry that you had a problem with that.

You very much intended to insult me so don't play word games and try to put this back on me. You never tried to explain anything (where's your links to the actual laws you claim to be explaining?), you tried to bully everyone into blindly accepting you as an expert - just like you always do. Well, you should realize that i'm not going to be bullied by you - i've have far better bullies try.

if you want to DISCUSS the laws, then link the ones you are basing your opinions on. If you can't identify the laws you seem intent on explaining, then your opinion holds no water.

[toedtoes]

Re: Pa State Parks

David - my apologies for sidetracking this thread, but TPLife has a reputation for this type of bullying and if he gets away with it on thread, he starts doing it on the rest.

As for your circumstances, I'd love to hear answers to the questions asked above. The description of your experience was extremely vague and not enough for anyone to provide reasonable feedback (positive or negative).

[davidpa28140]

Re: Pa State Parks

Toedtoes, Thank you for your response and I agree it is unfortunate for temperatures to rise in a place where we all share common interest. As to the details of my issue, have you looked at all my responses? I ask this because the moderation period took a rather long time in which several post had been made before my post were approved. Thus they fell out of order and behind making them easy to overlook.... I felt some of my responses were quite lengthy , perhaps to much so
I will gladly clarify any detail though, as this topic is very dear to me.

[toedtoes]

Re: Pa State Parks

Thanks David, I missed those posts. In a quick search, I found the decision in Commonwealth v. Shiem http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...81959.pdf?cb=1

This basically says that in Pennsylvania police do NOT need a warrant to search a vehicle. They do have to have "probable cause". A person can refuse a search, but that won't necessarily stop the police from searching (but they can't use the refusal as grounds for the probable cause).

As we only have the one viewpoint here, I can't say they were completely unreasonable and that the search was inappropriate. However, I would say that you need to get a lawyer. Have the lawyer send a letter to the PA State Parks requesting their probable cause justification to have searched your vehicles. They'll hem and haw, but it will force them to address the situation (something they won't do for a "mere citizen").

In regards to the uniforms. Did you ever question the first guy who showed up and asked for his position, name, etc.? Something to remember in the future - always ask who they are and what their position/rank is. You can also ask to see their badges - they won't let you hold or touch them, but they will show you. You can go a lot farther with that information. In California, the non-sworn state park employees have a different uniform than the sworn peace officers - while similar in style (khaki button down shirt, khaki utility pants, boots), the most obvious difference is around the waist (the sworn ranger will have a gun belt; the other staff won't).

[toedtoes]

Re: Pa State Parks

California Law: People v. Hughston (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1070-71. ("As the Colorado Supreme Court reasoned in Schafer, supra, 946 P.2d at p. 944: "Whether pitched on vacant open land or in a crowded campground, a tent screens the inhabitant therein from public view. Though it cannot be secured by a deadbolt and can be entered by those who respect not others, the thin walls of a tent nonetheless are notice of its occupant's claim to privacy unless consent to enter be asked and given. One should be free to depart the campsite for the day's adventure without fear of this expectation of privacy being violated. Whether of short or longer term duration, one's occupation of a tent is entitled to equivalent protection from unreasonable government intrusion [through an illegal search or seizure] as that afforded to homes or hotel rooms.")

And the Colorado reasoning for their ruling:
The Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public . . . is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). Whether pitched on vacant open land or in a crowded campground, a tent screens the inhabitant therein from public view. Though it cannot be secured by a deadbolt and easily may be entered by those who respect not others, the thin walls of a tent nonetheless are notice of its occupant's claim to privacy unless consent to enter be asked and given. One should be free to depart the campsite for the day's adventure without fear of this expectation of privacy being violated. Whether of short or longer term duration, one's occupation of a tent is entitled to equivalent protection from unreasonable government intrusion as that afforded to homes or hotel rooms. See United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir. 1993)(reasonable expectation of privacy existed for tent on state campground); Alward v. State, 912 P.2d 243, 249 (Nev. 1996)(person has reasonable expectation of privacy in tent while camping on BLM land). An integral facet of Colorado's economy and allure is recreational tourism. Visitors and residents of Colorado who choose to stay in a hotel room, cabin, or tent away from their permanent abode presumptively enjoy Fourth Amendment protection. "A guest in Yellowstone Lodge, a hotel on government park land, would have no less reasonable an expectation of privacy in his hotel room than a guest in a private hotel, and the same logic would extend to a campsite when the opportunity is extended to spend the night." Gooch, 6 F.3d at 678. The scenic and historic town of Cortez, the gateway to Mesa Verde National Park and the locus of this case, depends significantly on visitation to Southwestern Colorado and the Four Corners region. Ordinarily, a person who occupies land as a trespasser, or a person who should anticipate under the circumstances that privacy cannot reasonably be expected, does not justifiably rely upon the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Ruckman, 806 F.2d 1471, 1473 (10th Cir. 1986) (person occupying natural cave on federal land does not have reasonable expectation of privacy); State v. Mooney, 588 A.2d 145, 153 (Conn. 1991)(presuming that space under a bridge abutment owned by state transportation department cannot be considered one's home). Here, the district court found that Schafer was not in trespass because he was using his tent for camping on unimproved, publicly accessible land which was neither fenced nor posted, and he enjoyed a license or privilege to do so. The land was often used by local youth for parties and bore no indication that it was not available for camping, despite its rough appearance. Schafer had spent the previous night in the tent. There was no basis for the police officers to reasonably believe that the tent and the personal effects therein had been abandoned by their owner.
The officers conducting the entry and search relied solely on the characterization spoken to them by a friend of the robbery victim that a "transient" was camping on land behind the restaurant. No description or other identifying information tied the robber to the inhabitant of the tent. Without a warrant, the officers nevertheless unzipped the tent, opened the backpack, extracted the notebook, and recorded information contained on an envelope therein.
The prosecution informed the trial court that it intended to offer this information "as circumstantial evidence that [Schafer] was in town at the time" of the robbery. This it may not do. The district court was correct in excluding testimony and other evidence based on this warrantless search. Schafer was using the tent for camping and had secured it in a closed position. The officers discovered the information they seek to utilize in this regard solely by means of their unauthorized intrusion. The exclusionary rule functions to redress such deprivation of a constitutional right and to deter like official misconduct. Cf. People v. Shinaut, 940 P.2d 380, 383 (Colo. 1997).


The above case laws (as well as others) indicate that a tent provides a legitimate "expectation of privacy" and cannot be searched without a warrant or "emergency" qualifiers. It does not address the campsite in and of itself.

[davidpa28140]

Re: Pa State Parks

toed toes,
Thank you for your time in bringing me those cases. In searching the “Pennsylvania Crimes Code and Vehicle Law Handbook” , under the chapter of “Pennsylvania Legal Guidelines” page LG-35 subchapter F. Search of Containers , is a section that I believe may be helpful in offering me some further clarity as to what should be expected in Pa State Parks, this book was offered to me to view by the manager at a Pa State Park I volunteer at and as I understand it is the code they are to use…It reads as follows;
“Regardless of whether the subject of a search is a container, like a briefcase, purse, suitcase or footlocker, instead of a house, car, office building or person, the general rule is the same; A warrant must be obtained before the container may be opened. The Fourth Amendment proscribes - except in certain well defined circumstances -the search of that property unless accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued on probable cause.., U.S v Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982). These "well defined circumstances" e.g. search incident to arrest or a booking search are discussed under a warrantless searches, below. The rationale advanced in the situation is similar to the reasoning behind the rule requiring warrants for the search of a home. When an individual manifest an expectation that certain items remain private by placing them in a closed container it is unreasonable for the government to intrude on that expectation of privacy without the protections of a warrant based on a clear showing of probable cause. When dealing with items of personality, the procedure prior to a search may be somewhat different, in that it is permissible to briefly detain personal property, based on a reasonable suspicion that it contains contraband. A crucial, and often dispositive distinction must be made between closed containers seized and detained from the possession of a person, and those containers taken from an automobile.
If the container is found in an automobile, the police may almost always open and search the container without a warrant, if they have probable cause to think the container, or the car transporting it, contains contraband.

G. Exceptions to the warrant requirement( Warrantless searches)

The general rule is that all searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. To justify a warrantless search, the Commonwealth must show that the search falls into one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to warrant requirements. Courts have, however, crafted a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions to the general principle, and they are discussed in detail, below“..

I'm not going to go into detail here as I don't believe any of these apply but for completeness sake for anyone else in this situation they are ;

1 Exigent Circumstances
2 Destruction or Removal of Evidence
3 Flight of Suspect
4 Safety of the Officer or Others
5 Hot Pursuit
6 Search Incident to Arrest
7 Emergency Aid
8 Consent
9 Inventory and Booking
10 Automobiles
11 Implied Consent ( DUI Stops)
12 Administrative Searches
　
It appears to me like the staff members actions were not constitutional bu this reading , I should point out it was not our vehicles that were searched, it was our coolers, canoes, kayaks, cooking equipment, back packs, and duffle bags. They threatened to come back and search our tents and vehicles but did not.
To address your questions, I did not question the first guy who showed up as I have always in the past found the Rangers at state parks to be friendly and unthreatening..
All the staff at Pa State Parks looks the same with the exception of the managers not carrying firearms and the DCNR Rangers carrying firearms, otherwise their uniforms are very difficult to tell apart if at all.
Be assured if I ever get approached at another Pa State Park by any staff I will not only ask their business at my site, I will ask their name, position and record all conversation from their arrival to their departure… it makes me sad to have to be “that guy “ that behaves that way. I know 95% of the parks are staffed by good honest people but it is becoming apparent the other 5% will not be held accountable..
Thanks again for your insights, I’m presently in contact with a Representative that maybe able to get my questions answered, if that doesn’t pan out I will be proceeding via the civil action method.

[MountainMama]

Re: Pa State Parks

I and I imagine most other visitors don't have an issue with PA State Parks having a " no alcohol policy" in general it keeps our parks from becoming a party grounds that are counter productive to family relaxation. Also it gives the parks a way to eject holigans.

That's exactly what those laws have always been used for, in my experience. I have never seen them enforced on a family have a beer or drink by the campfire.

I truly don't know why these park employees (Rangers??) choose to bully us this night, we had no radio , were quite and isolated from other campers and we're having a pleasant conversation with the first staff member who we invited to eat dinner with us before his other two staff members showed up.
Before they began there search I asked if they're were any complaints or if we had made noise, to which they said no. I told them I did not consent to any searches, to which they did anyway. Each of my family members, ranging from 2 years old to 61 years old was sober and the only thing the Rangers(?) came up with was our empty beer cans and several full beer cans on the boats. Really , I'm not bothered by them taking the few beers left on the boat, I'm bothered by the unaccountably of their actions , the way they bullied and intimidated us and the stubborn refusal of anyone at the PA Bureau of State Parks to tell me who they were, and when a park employee can without warrant search a patrons belongings. This lack of accountability is what makes me fearful to attend the park system that before this I truly loved.
Thanks so much for reading this and sharing your experiences or thoughts,
Dave

I'm glad you are following through with fighting this. It's really scary to think people can encounter bullies on a power trip in isolated areas. These employees need to be held accountable.

I'll bet his has happened to many others at the same hands, who have not followed through. That is what they are counting on.

Please keep us updated on what happens with this case. I hope justice is done.