May24 - Table Mesa = Ticket, ARS13-1302(B) - Trespass w/o Trust Land Permit (1 Viewer)

[Living in the Past]

I wonder how hard it is to get a "grazing lease" and if you even have to verify that you actually are "grazing" anything...

Don't know about requirements for leasing State Trust Land but as for property taxes for land owners calling their land grazing they pay almost nothing in the way of taxes. Years ago it was on new how a broker was putting people together who owned to little land to be called grazing but by creating a co op that put these people together. Didn't run any cattle just paid almost no taxes while they wait for development to to build out to where they land is. Then rezone the land and subdivide and sell for a fortune. Don't remember every hearing our elected officials closing the loop hole. Only requirement was no improvements to the land. Thanks to the co op it didn't even need to be large enough to support one cow. The area that was in question back in the news would only support 1 1/2 head of cattle per 160 acres.

 

[Living in the Past]

Man, it's hard to find information on how much these "grazers" actually pay... Latest I could find was the 2012 fiscal year, where the state leased out 8.4 million acres, and took in 2.4 million dollars. Not sure how equally that was distributed, but that's an average of 30 cents an acre per year.

Remember Cattle is one of AZ's five Cs. I guess if schools dropped the s at off school it would be part of six Cs and would fair better off the acreage that is suppose to be used to help them.

 

[LongDuck]

The day the ticket was written (May24), one of the first sentences out of the MCSO Sheriff was, "Do you know you're on State Trust Land?" and "Do you have a valid State Trust Land Permit?"

I'm guessing if I had the permit at the time - along with the pink hang tag in a prominent visible location, I would not have gotten the ticket in the first place.

 

[GWcruiser]

The day the ticket was written (May24), one of the first sentences out of the MCSO Sheriff was, "Do you know you're on State Trust Land?" and "Do you have a valid State Trust Land Permit?"

I'm guessing if I had the permit at the time - along with the pink hang tag in a prominent visible location, I would not have gotten the ticket in the first place.

Ya see - my first knee jerk response would have been "No - didn't know I was on STL... am I?" To which the officer might say "Yes." Then I'd ask, "Well what do the permits look like? Since you're also on STL, you should have one, right?"

Then I get to see the inside of a MSCO police car close up ...

 

[Off Duty]

Been away for a while and just came back.
What a crock of crap! Sorry to read this.

States are getting worse and worse IMO.

Hope it all works out in your favor.

OD

 

[Living in the Past]

Man, it's hard to find information on how much these "grazers" actually pay... Latest I could find was the 2012 fiscal year, where the state leased out 8.4 million acres, and took in 2.4 million dollars. Not sure how equally that was distributed, but that's an average of 30 cents an acre per year.

I know AZ doesn't have grass like the mid west that makes great grazing land but thirty cent a acre a year is nothing. I wouldn't call the area around Tablet Mesa Road any better than other areas around the southern part of the state. It might be closer to town than other areas but don't remember cattle coming into town on Saturday Night. Don't believe the feds do much better on national forest. The big difference is the feds stand is your getting the grazing rights cheap when you complain the response is if your not happy with something pound sand.

I worked a government job for close to twenty years and know a little how it operates. My wife has over twenty one years working a government job in the accounting field. She has dealt with counties, state and feds. There are things like taxes that the state collects and shares with counties and cities called shared revenue. The revenue from the state trust land does not fall under shared revenue. In fact it not part of the state general fund. That money goes to education. If the state pulls other money out of the education budget like it did with the 2% sale tax is another matter. The park at Lake Pleasant is a county park that county keeps the money generated by fees. It makes sense that county is going to write tickets to those who aren't paying the fee. That is lost revenue to them. In the case of state trust land I serious doubt the state pays the counties to enforce the law. So instead of having a punishment that fits the crime you end up with a punishment that makes it worth while for counties to enforce. In the case of the lease holder complaint instead of simply going and trying to solve the real problem with the cattle they go up there and write tickets on state land. Without the required permit that allows MCSO to write tickets I wonder how much effort they would put into a complaint?

First time I remember hearing state land was private property was when I was going to the that four wheeling spot around Morristown. Remember there was a road that headed up from around Wittman that took off a few miles. While I never took this road I remember hearing all you had to do was carry a 22, some shells and say were rabbit hunting. Don't remember hearing about any permits back them. Just makes you wonder if the whole private property thing is so Law enforce agencies have reason to even bother going on state land. Otherwise when the rancher complained the county would tell the state that your leaser on your land you handle the problem.
At thirty cent a acre CSC could afford a thousand acres to have make a off road park. With all the 4X4 clubs in the valley just thing of how big a area could but open to off road.

 

[re_guderian]

Yeah, just try finding info about the six parcels that unleased, what lease and renewal terms are...

 

[elyitus]

Weird, I was just there with a bunch of jeeps. we talked to the ranger for a while and he didn't seem to be concerned about any permits...

 

[Living in the Past]

Weird, I was just there with a bunch of jeeps. we talked to the ranger for a while and he didn't seem to be concerned about any permits...

Ranger as in FS ranger is different than MCSO. One is county employee who will enforce state laws. The other is a federal employee who is not writing tickets for state of AZ courts. State Trust Land is a state issue not federal.

 

[GWcruiser]

Another aside - enforcement of state law normally is out the jurisdiction of county mounties. Perhaps there is a county ordinance that adopts state rules. But part of me thinks an MSCO officers can't cite based on state law, that only a DPS state officer can do that.

I know that in the past a few states have said a county officer can't ticket on state or federal roads (like freeways), only the state police can do that - or federal level police (as in USFS rangers - yes, rangers are authorized to enforce federal law and can issue citations for things like speed limits). In Washington, e.g., a county mountie can't issue a speed citation on a interstate freeway - only the state patrol can do that. It gets fuzzy on a state highway... not sure why.

Probably a good question for a legal expert.

 

[Living in the Past]

I don't believe counties have any problems enforcing laws that would fall under DPS. More than a few times I've seen counties sheriff's officers writing tickets on interstate 17. This was north of the valley out of Maricopa County and wasn't MCSO. Unless I'm mistaken FS tickets are handled in Federal courts. Don't think federal LEO write tickets for any state/county/city courts. Serious doubt the fed would be happy their employees having to take time off to go the court for a state trespassing ticket. As for MCSO if they can't write ticket for the state's law then the OP should have no problem getting out of the ticket since it was MCSO who wrote the ticket.

 

[tonka az]

I've been trying to catch up on this thread, and am more than willing to try and give as much info on this as possible. Regarding enforcement of state law, keep in mind every cop in Arizona is a "Certified Peace Officer" by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. This means every cop is sworn to enforce State law anywhere in the State. The only thing that keeps city cops to their cities and Deputies to their counties are their agencies. If a Mesa officer pulls someone over for speeding in Glendale, the court won't care. They may get a smack on the wrist by their supervisor, but that's it. Therefore, if its state trust land in a "jurisdiction", the corresponding agency can enforce the State violation.

Forest Service and Tribal po-po are certified both under the State and Federal Peace Officer certifications. Therefore, they can enforce state AND federal laws, then get their pick as to where the case/complaint goes (state or fed).

Regarding the enforcement of STL permits, etc, most agencies won't bother unless A) its going into hunting season, in which case they simply get a buttload of knuckleheads that cause issues for everyone else, or B) there has been a complaint of a bunch of knuckleheads that are ruining everyone else's fun. Honestly, from what I've seen, its never been for the "revenue".

And, the cow thing, I have no idea.

 

[Living in the Past]

I am curious who is a po-po for the FS. In the Blue Ridge area of Coconino National Forest there is only one LEO in the area who packs a gun. The other rangers can write tickets but are not gun packing LEO. Would these rangers write tickets for state laws on state land? Would be curious if there has ever been a case of FS writing a ticket for trespassing on state trust land if they weren't other illegal activities involved besides driving down a all weather road.

 

[tonka az]

No. Only the "Gun-Packing" po-po would be the ones to write state violations. Something like your scenario (if understood correctly) would be taken care of by the none-packin po-po calling for a packin one who is a sworn peace officer in AZ (I would assume).

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

A few years back I went down to the STL office and met with some shirts on the rules of travel on STL roads that run through NF. One of my problem in the past was the permit fee's went into a slush fund. I was happy to hear the monies were now going into a separate fund for STL. When asked what the monies would be used for I was VERY disappointed when they answered " to educated law enforcement". Great would it not be better to educated the public and promote the need for permits and how the monies could help the use of STL. Soon after that STL open up a bidding contact on the policing of STL.

 

[tonka az]

Yaaaaaa.........I enjoy front-line public contact and on view enforcement. Everything above me is just depressing......

 

[LongDuck]

Current status - pre-trail conference held with the County Prosecutor last Monday. She had us sign forms which stated we understood we would not be assigned legal counsel by the court and that we could end the conference at any moment to file a continuance and get an attorney to represent us. We signed and moved on to Disclosure. The 'long form' citation was handed to each of us which spelled out the writing officer's view of us being on the land, the circumstances, the location ("approx. 4 miles from I-17") and a picture of the State Trust Land signage on the gate at the ranch closest to Table Mesa Rd & I-17.

At that point, I stated my/our case that 1) we immediately filed for and received STL permits the day after being ticketed, 2) I've retold my story online here to help elucidate the need for STL permits when wheeling through or on STL, and 3) that the citation clearly states that we were 4 miles from I-17, and yet the border between STL and BLM land begins at 3.7miles - I had a printed, color map from the State Land Department showing the land boundary. The prosecutor asked if she could make copies of all of this to which I agreed and I made it clear that I'm more than willing to pay the fine ($150 each) but that we are trying hard to avoid a criminal misdemeanor 'guilty' conviction.

She asked if we'd agree to a continuance so the State could gather more evidence, i.e., talk to the officer about the details I'd provided above. She was particularly interested in that there are no signs on the EAST side of the STL/BLM boundary stating that you're leaving/entering STL, and also that the MCSO officers were waiting for us to drive down the hill toward them as they were sitting right on the STL/BLM boundary distance. I stated that I accept full responsibility for not having the permit and do not deny being on STL and entering STL - and that we just want to avoid any type of guilty plea on our permanent records.

The County Attorney's prosecutor asked to take a break to discuss the above details with her supervisor and we were willing to wait. About 15min later, she returned and wanted us to agree to a 30d continuance so she could call the officer and 'gather evidence'. We mentioned we were willing to wait as long as needed that day to close things out - if at all possible as we just wanted to get this resolved. She agreed and we ended up waiting about 3hrs for the writing officer to return her call and e-mail - he was unavailable for whatever reason and didn't get back to her. At that point, the prosecutor said she would need more time to 'gather evidence' (*talk to the officer) and we agreed to a 30d continuance under the premise that we're still 'un-convicted' at the moment and better to remain that way. Another day in court coming up and here's to hoping that it will result in ONLY the fine and no guilty plea required.

Keep in mind the timeline that this offense occurred on May24, 2014, long-form re-issuance of the citation on Nov5 and summons on my doorstep the week of Thanksgiving, arraignment in December, 2014, and here we are at court in January and still trying to get this resolved.

This has been an ongoing stress that I wouldn't wish on anybody, so please be careful where you wheel and consider the consequences when you go. I'll post another status after the next day in court, and appreciate the advice given in the past.

 

[Living in the Past]

All I can say is WOW. Might be worth it to get a lawyer. You show up to traffic court and the officer is a no show they throw the ticket out or at least that the way it used to work. I think a lawyer could make a case of the county can't get it act together it's not your fault and judge would throw it. County waiting until Nov. to file charges is BS. I think a lawyer might ask for a jury trial. Let the public see what their doing. With out rereading this you came in from the east and there was no signage stating your entering private state land? Would think just that would be enough for a judge to throw it out. Then instead of LEO who is waiting informing your entering land that requires a permit they wait until you enter so they can write a ticket. Hearing how the ticket was wrote in the first place and then what they put you thru since I would find not guilty of anything.

Again sorry to heard what your going thru.

 

[LongDuck]

Well, here is the final disposition - short version: guilty plea to misdemeanor criminal trespassing, with an approved Order to Set Aside Judgement of Guilt, signed by the judge and stamped by the court.

Long version: (and I waited 15 days to tell this story until the motion I filed to set aside judgement was approved...) After my update in January, we met with the prosecutor again and she said she spoke to the writing MCSO officer and he was standing by his ticket. Next step if we chose not to take a plea agreement which fixed the fine at $150 each and pleading guilty to the misdemeanor trespassing charge - would be a trial. Also, the plea agreement with the prosecutors office would 'fix' the fine amount at $150 each, and the prosecutor explained that the judge had leeway to levy a fine as high as $1,000 each plus 83% actioning fee, court fees, and even including up to 30days in jail. This being the lowest class of misdemeanor - there is no lower penalty to plea to. It's either guilty-with-fine or trial date and face your accuser and the prosecutor.

At this point, my buddy and I talked for a bit and decided we'd had enough. May, 2014 to February, 2015 and we wanted this to be done. Signed the plea agreement and when we went before the judge, I asked him if he'd consider a motion to set aside and he replied he "would be VERY open to that." (his emphasis). I paid the fines for both of us (as my buddy was a passenger in my LC that day), and we took our receipts and the motion and filed it with the clerk. At that point, they had 15 days to get a copy to the prosecutors office to see if they would deny it on grounds of the ticket, and they did not - and then the judge approved the motion turning it into an Order of the court, setting aside the conviction.

My understanding of this is that it effectively removes the conviction from my record unless another charge comes up, at which time it will be as if the order to set aside was never made - and would this would then be considered a 'prior' conviction.

I'm not happy about that, but that's the way it turned out - and I accepted responsibility for my actions. Honestly, just glad this is finally over, and the wheels of justice which grind the grist turn slowly, but ceaselessly. If AZ offered a 'lifetime' State Trust Land Permit - I would buy one today regardless of the cost. Since they don't, I'll just have to buy one every year on May 24th as a reminder. Thanks for following along, and I hope this tale has helped someone out there avoid the turmoil I've experienced.

 

[murf]

Unbelievable...

Glad it mostly worked out and you were able to keep it off your record. I better go double check the expiration of my STLP.