base666 0 #1 September 13, 2006 From the NPS Morning Report: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 INCIDENTS Zion National Park (UT) Four Plead Guilty To BASE Jumping On May 1st, dispatch notified rangers that a park researcher had reported seeing parachutes in the air in the vicinity of Mount K............ Rangers responded and contacted four men, all of whom were carrying large backpacks. All four refused to consent to a search of their backpacks, so a search warrant was requested, obtained and served, resulting in the seizure of four parachutes and associated equipment. Each was also issued a mandatory appearance violation notice. On August 8th, the last of the four men entered his plea. Ferry Jacobs, 28, Christopher McNamara, 28, Jeffery “JT” Holmes, 26, and Jesse Hall, 24, all pled guilty to 36 CFR 2.17(a)(3), the regulation on “air delivery” (this rule prohibits “delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies…”). Each worked out a slightly different plea agreement with the assistant U.S. attorney, so the fines ranged from $2,000 with permanent forfeiture of equipment to $4,000 with return of equipment. Plea agreements also included a 24 month ban from the park and $500 in restitution to the Peregrine Fund, as the cliff that they jumped from was closed at the time because it was an active peregrine falcon nesting area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtholmes 0 #2 September 13, 2006 yeah yeah yeah... except these guys are probably more commonly known by their aliases: Hollondaise sauce, Squirrel Shit, Uncle Potato Head, and Dead Man Walking. busted. guilty as sin. BANNED from zion. Federal Probation. Damn it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #3 September 13, 2006 So how were they legaly able to detain you while they went through the process of obtaining a warrent?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 September 13, 2006 <> - If you are falling off a cliff.... Isn't that classed as an emergency then? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
inzite 0 #5 September 13, 2006 Just going out on a limb...the rangers had reasonable suspicion that the four involved had jumped earlier. Whether seeing four guys with backpacks in the vicinity of reported jumping constitutes "reasonable suspicion" is a matter of debate for the judge. I'm sure practically every second hiker in the park has a "backpack" of some sort. Of course, if the four were wearing GoFast clothing, tracking pants, birdman suits, or other skydiving/BASE parephernalia, the case for reasonable suspicion is much stronger. Also, they could have been detained for some other violation, such as being in an off-limits section of the park. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 0 #6 September 13, 2006 QuoteAlso, they could have been detained for some other violation, such as being in an off-limits section of the park. Which, given the cliff was closed because of nesting peregrines, is a distinct possibility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tfelber 0 #7 September 13, 2006 You can be detained for ANY reason at ANY time. Read the Homeland Security Act. You can be "arrested" and your property "searched or seized" if THEY "believe that a violation has been committed." All in the name of protecting us from terrorism. Ha snaybody even heard of a plot to blow up Yosemite??? FKN Stupid!!! edited to add... You can also be detained without charge... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
avenfoto 0 #8 September 13, 2006 welcome to the new improved amerika. makes me fucking wretch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #9 September 13, 2006 The irony is that he's replying to a poster (inzite) who is in Moscow (the one in Russia).-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SabreDave 0 #10 September 13, 2006 In the words of the great Othar.... "HAHA JT got banned!"SabreDave Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 September 18, 2006 QuoteSo how were they legaly able to detain you while they went through the process of obtaining a warrent? For the same reason as a cop can detain a person he pulled over to await a warrant for the search of a vehicle. If the cop who pulled you over asks, "Can I search your vehicle" you can say, "No." Then the cop can try to get a warrant. Usually, they'll bring a dog over to sniff to get more probable cause. Holding someone pending a warrant is nothing new. My wife is hotter than your wife. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MNM604 0 #12 September 19, 2006 Might want to keep working that law degree. Vehicles are an exception to the search warrant rule. In the case of possible gear, they can legally hold onto the back packs pending the warrant. You can only detain the men for a reasonable amount of time. In most, I said "most", cases the persons could be properly identified and released pending the issuance of a warrant and the opening of the bags. Depends on the actual potential charges..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #13 September 19, 2006 QuoteVehicles are an exception to the search warrant rule. I believe that varies by state.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MNM604 0 #14 September 19, 2006 No its actually a Supreme Court ruling "Ross". Applies to all states. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #15 September 19, 2006 Has there been a case of Ross being applied to items that are not contraband? In other words, does Ross apply to something like a BASE rig, that is legal to possess (clearly not "contraband" under the general defintion of contraband as "an item that is illegal to possess, produce or distribute.")? I'll try to take the time to read the whole thing, but it sounds like you've got a good handle on it, so I figured I'd ask you first. Thanks!-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MNM604 0 #16 September 19, 2006 No, I only pointed this out because of Lawrockets post on cops and vehicle searches. Nothing really to do with this case as the warrant was required for the backpacks. Sorry we got off point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 September 19, 2006 QuoteNo, I only pointed this out because of Lawrockets post on cops and vehicle searches. Nothing really to do with this case as the warrant was required for the backpacks. Sorry we got off point. Obviously, I was giving an oversimplified explanation. You quoted Ross, which dealt with a warrantless search of an auto. As stated in the first post, this was not a warrantless search. The suspects were detained pending issuance of a search warrant. I could go back to Carroll and explain how containers could be "detained" pending issuance of a search warrant. In a sense, a Terry stop was instituted, and officers may "detain" suspects without "arrest" pending a search warrant to collect evidence. I understand that the vehicle issue was not the greatest example in a legal sense, but thought it to be practical in a lay sense. My wife is hotter than your wife. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calvin19 0 #18 September 19, 2006 Holmes... im sorry man. I was in the hospital when that happened. im Halls friend. he just got hs new BJ finished. bastard had my gear in Norway for 2 months. borrowing BASE gear is a bitch. especialy when your a sketchball like me. damn the man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
