Prepare:
Do: Consider the following statute:
"Whoever drives or operates a vehicle in any park owned or operated by any branch of any state or municipal government shall be guilty"
Think about whether your interpretation of this statute would differ in any way from the interpretation of the previous rule (no vehicles in the park)?
The following individuals are being prosecuted for violation of this statute:
A young man pushing a baby carriage with his six month old daughter inside
A young woman riding a mountain bike
A lawn maintenance worker on a riding mower
A teenager on a moped
A man driving a car
Each of these individuals was on a paved path in a city (municipally owned and operated) park.
What kind of arguments might you think about making on their behalf? What additional information to you need (factual and legal)? Where would you look to get it? Why is it relevant?
Does the fact that this is a criminal statute give you additional arguments? If so, what kind? Why? How do you articulate them?
What if the bicycle rider said he didn’t see a sign and didn’t know that bicycles were prohibited? What if there was no sign? What if he saw a sign but didn’t think a bicycle was a vehicle? Or knew a bicycle was a "vehicle" but didn’t think it was the type of vehicle prohibited?
What if he says he knew vehicles were prohibited, but didn’t know it was a crime to bring a vehicle into the park?
Would it affect any of your analysis if the violation was merely an infraction with a $10 fine? If it were a misdemeanor offense with a large fine and up to 30 days jail sentence? If it were a felony? Why?
In Class: No Vehicles Criminal Problem
Reflect: See Reflection from previous class
| Next Class | Previous Class | Home |