michelino-sunseri-found-guilty-of-cutting-national-park-switchback

 https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/the_hole_scroll/grand-teton-speed-runner-michelino-sunseri-found-guilty-of-cutting-a-switchback/article_2cae00e3-7f78-4e16-9f57-ed8d3ccb0510.html

Huray!!!!

The OP article is really lackluster coverage.

Up to $5000 in fines and a ban from the park for using an old climbers trail is rather concerning.

https://www.tetongravity.com/trail-runner-michelino-sunseri-found-guilty-in-grand-teton-off-trail-case/

Andy Wwrote:

for using an old climbers trail is rather concerning.

Let me fix that for you:

for using an old climbers trail that is closed with signage and shortcuts between portions of the same trail which is a violation of 36 CFR 21(b)

What is concerning that a so called professional athlete who has been on that trail numerous times would think that they are special and the rules do not apply to them.

When Sunseri bounded up and down the 13,775-foot peak in 2 hours, 50 minutes and 50 seconds on Labor Day 2024, he used that switchback on the way down, and posted about it on Strava. He caught flak for doing so from Jackson-area mountain runners and, shortly after, was charged by the park.

Pride goes before a fall.

Was he caught on the shortcut by park rangers or was he charged on the basis of his Strava post?

If its the latter, this case sets a dangerous precedent. 

Anyone who applauds the charges should examine the implications of the federal government prosecuting a citizen using only evidence found on the internet.

Imagine a world where the feds show up at your door for something you posted on Mountain Project

TL;DR: 1984

Allen Sandersonwrote:

I don't disagree it was a violation, and possibly blatant by someone who knows better (altho I can get tunnel vision when running downhill trying to set fast times), BUT does the punishment fit the crime?? Possible jail time (even tho the judge in this case is probably not going that route), a burdensome fine, and lifetime ban?!

I've used shortcuts, climber trails, and been completely off trail in the parks and could accept those actions may warrant a small fine, not unlike sleeping in my van in the lot or any other minor violation that doesn't harm anything or put anyone in danger. But I hope this doesn't set a precedent for how the parks are going to handle those of us being (at times possibly over) adventurous in our national parks.

Dirtbag Betawrote:

Was he caught on the shortcut by park rangers or was he charged on the basis of his Strava post?

If its the latter, this case sets a dangerous precedent. 

Anyone who applauds the charges should examine the implications of the federal government prosecuting a citizen using only evidence found on the internet.

Imagine a world where the feds show up at your door for something you posted on Mountain Project

TL;DR: 1984

The usage of electronic geolocation as well as social media has been used as evidence in court for decades. In fact, there is a joke about the latter.

Social media, helping criminal convict themselves since 1997. That applies here.

If you carry a cell phone, that location data can and will be used in court in multiple ways.

As for the feds showing up at one's door for something posted on social media. Do try keep up as that has happened repeatedly. Usually for threats of bodily harm, often made against elected officials and other high ranking officials.

This case is not 1984. Far from it. This case is about mouth masturbation.

Andy W wrote:

I don't disagree it was a violation, and possibly blatant by someone who knows better (altho I can get tunnel vision when running downhill trying to set fast times), BUT does the punishment fit the crime?? Possible jail time (even tho the judge in this case is probably not going that route), a burdensome fine, and lifetime ban?!

No, sentence has been given, so your post is moot. That said, he will likely be given a fine and banned from the park for a year.

Daniel Shively wrote:

Is it “illegal” to walk off trail in national parks, or was the problem walking/running on a trail that was “closed”?  If it is illegal to walk off trails the NPS is out of control.

"Leaving a trail or walkway to shortcut between portions of the same trail or walkway, or to shortcut to an adjacent trail or walkway in violation of designated restrictions is prohibited."

- 36 CFR 21(b):

Is it “illegal” to walk off trail in national parks, or was the problem walking/running on a trail that was “closed”?  If it is illegal to walk off trails the NPS is out of control. 

Allen Sandersonwrote:

The usage of electronic geolocation as well as social media has been used as evidence in court for decades. In fact, there is a joke about the latter.

Social media, helping criminal convict themselves since 1997. That applies here.

If you carry a cell phone, that location data can and will be used in court in multiple ways.

As for the feds showing up at one's door for something posted on social media. Do try keep up as that has happened repeatedly. Usually for threats of bodily harm, often made against elected officials and other high ranking officials.

This case is not 1984. Far from it. This case is about mouth masturbation.

No, sentence has been given, so your post is moot. That said, he will likely be given a fine and banned from the park for a year.

"Leaving a trail or walkway to shortcut between portions of the same trail or walkway, or to shortcut to an adjacent trail or walkway in violation of designated restrictions is prohibited."

- 36 CFR 21(b):

The use of “shortcut” is too vague and opens the possibility for selective/targeted enforcement.  If a trail winds along one aspect of a mountain or ridge and continues along the opposite aspect and a person leaves the trail to cross the ridge/mountain to later rejoin the trail, this could be construed as a “shortcut”.  I can understand limiting specific areas to access, but have witnessed way too much selective/targeted enforcement in National Parks (mostly Yosemite) to allow rangers/leo to interpret the regulations. If there was specific information stated on the signage with penalties clearly defined, I doubt Michelino-Sunseri or others would have cut the swithbacks.

Allen Sandersonwrote:

The usage of electronic geolocation as well as social media has been used as evidence in court for decades.

This is very true -- best not to have anything that could incriminate digitally recorded.

This case is about mouth masturbation.

You're suggesting the citation and prosecution is different because it was publicly shared? That would be very subjective application, which, as Daniel pointed out, has been demonstrated to not work in climbers' favor.

No, sentence has been given, so your post is moot. That said, he will likely be given a fine and banned from the park for a year.

Oh geez, I should have said "does the POSSIBLE OR LIKELY punishment fit the crime" for the disproportion of such to be considered??

Daniel Shively wrote:

Is it “illegal” to walk off trail in national parks, or was the problem walking/running on a trail that was “closed”?  If it is illegal to walk off trails the NPS is out of control.

The first part of 36 CFR 21(b) that Allen is not including says "The superintendent may restrict hiking or pedestrian use to a designated trail or walkway system pursuant to §§ 1.5 and 1.7". 36 CFR 1.5 (a) says "the superintendent may: (1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity. (2) Designate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.

These could allow broad discretion to make walking off trails in the park illegal. And per 36 CFR 1.7 the public notice doesn't have to be signage (altho I'll give them credit it usually does and then some).

I don't see how this violation should come with a misdemeanor charge and any significant fine or ban. What did he hurt or damage?? And let's be real, many park visitors violate rules. I watched tourons blatantly disregard a ranger's directions not to approach elk in the park this week. They didn't get a citation but arguably are causing a bigger impact to the park's resources than someone running down a well beaten shortcut. Or people parking off the side of the road clearly running over plant life. Or the hundreds of things littered by shear carelessness -- I carried a whole intact banana peel off the Grand this summer. Ticket those people please!

Let's hope he gets a large fine and banning from the park.  Yes, tourons are morons, but this was an act to aggrandize himself.  Dumb and dumber.

Steve Williamswrote:

Let's hope he gets a large fine and banning from the park.  Yes, tourons are morons, but this was an act to aggrandize himself.  Dumb and dumber.

Tend to agree. Maybe banning is too strong unless he does not make amends.

Like the guy who scammed getting his overweight cat on a flight, got away with it, bragged about it on social media, and with that saw his frequent flier miles and airline-related account impounded. Just rewards.

Andy Wwrote:

This is very true -- best not to have anything that could incriminate digitally recorded.

You're suggesting the citation and prosecution is different because it was publicly shared? That would be very subjective application, which, as Daniel pointed out, has been demonstrated to not work in climbers' favor.

Oh geez, I should have said "does the POSSIBLE OR LIKELY punishment fit the crime" for the disproportion of such to be considered??

The first part of 36 CFR 21(b) that Allen is not including says "The superintendent may restrict hiking or pedestrian use to a designated trail or walkway system pursuant to §§ 1.5 and 1.7". 36 CFR 1.5 (a) says "the superintendent may: (1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity. (2) Designate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.

These could allow broad discretion to make walking off trails in the park illegal. And per 36 CFR 1.7 the public notice doesn't have to be signage (altho I'll give them credit it usually does and then some).

I don't see how this violation should come with a misdemeanor charge and any significant fine or ban. What did he hurt or damage?? And let's be real, many park visitors violate rules. I watched tourons blatantly disregard a ranger's directions not to approach elk in the park this week. They didn't get a citation but arguably are causing a bigger impact to the park's resources than someone running down a well beaten shortcut. Or people parking off the side of the road clearly running over plant life. Or the hundreds of things littered by shear carelessness -- I carried a whole intact banana peel off the Grand this summer. Ticket those people please!

I agree with your assessment, seems like selective and targeted enforcement. The charges and possible penalties seem excessive, I’m continually dismayed with what the fed/judiciary deems worthy of spending time(tax dollars) on. 

It’s a tough pill to swallow to realize that some “climbers” would proclaim support for a man to be arrested for running down a trail. Strange times.

Andy W wrote:
You're suggesting the citation and prosecution is different because it was publicly shared? That would be very subjective application, which, as Daniel pointed out, has been demonstrated to not work in climbers' favor.

No, I am saying that perps who broadcast their crimes often get prosecuted. Broadcasting on social media is no different than the perp who brags about their crime to someone who then turns them into law enforcement. In both cases the perp brought the attention to themselves, albeit in different ways it leads to their prosecution. Social media though is more of a public confession. 

That said, I used the term mouth masturbation to describe the ad nauseum posting of so called records, especially those with minor differences for trivial pursuits. FKT are a good example of that. 

A final comment on those trying to reargue the merits of the case. I would suggest requesting a transcript of the court case, it lasted three days. Read through the transcript as the points being brought up were brought up at trial. At the end of the day the judge found them guilty of knowingly using a signed, closed, short-cut trail.

The bigger issue is the decision to cheat while going for an fkt record. Don't wish punishment on anyone for taking a short cut but do find it telling when someone cheats on a record attempt. 

I do believe we have “ bigger fish to fry “

be safe out there

What Allen said about FKT.  Yup!

"Officer, arrest these men!"

Allen Sandersonwrote:

This case is not 1984. Far from it. This case is about mouth masturbation.

Isn't that a bit of a stretch? 

so we wasted 3 days of court time for taking a short cut hiking?