 |
Re: CA PC 369 (i) ..
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 07-31-2012 - 08:57
Ken Shattock (KRK) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> California Penal Code Section 369i
>
> (a) Any person who enters or remains upon the
> property of any railroad without the permission of
> the owner of the land, the owner's agent, or the
> person in lawful possession and whose entry,
> presence, or conduct upon the property interferes
> with, interrupts, or hinders, or which, if allowed
> to continue, would interfere with, interrupt, or
> hinder the safe and efficient operation of any
> locomotive, railway car, or train is guilty of a
> misdemeanor.
>
> As used in this subdivision, “property of any
> railroad” means any land owned, leased, or
> possessed by a railroad upon which is placed a
> railroad track and the land immediately adjacent
> thereto, to the distance of 20 feet on either side
> of the track, which is owned, leased, or possessed
> by a railroad.
>
> (b) Any person who enters or remains upon any rail
> transit related property owned or operated by a
> county transportation commission or transportation
> authority without permission or whose entry,
> presence, or conduct upon the property interferes
> with, interrupts, or hinders the safe and
> efficient operation of the railline or
> rail-related facility is guilty of a misdemeanor.
The key word in this statute, Ken, is or, not and. Thus, a person doing any of the things listed, including entering railroad property to cross the tracks, is in violation. The "hindering operation" requirement is only one part of the statute, and does not need to be met in all cases for there to be a violation.
The woman would not have been cited by the officer had she not been observed doing what she was doing. From what she submitted to the newspaper, she doesn't deny that she was in violation, just that she feels that the fine is excessive and that she (and others) weren't aware that her actions were illegal because the railroad didn't provide adequate signage - not that the sign wasn't there, which it apparently was, but that it wasn't clear enough and that she thinks it should've also been in Spanish (although she never claims that she's unable to read English). Nothing in the statute requires the railroad or any public agency to do that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> California Penal Code Section 369i
>
> (a) Any person who enters or remains upon the
> property of any railroad without the permission of
> the owner of the land, the owner's agent, or the
> person in lawful possession and whose entry,
> presence, or conduct upon the property interferes
> with, interrupts, or hinders, or which, if allowed
> to continue, would interfere with, interrupt, or
> hinder the safe and efficient operation of any
> locomotive, railway car, or train is guilty of a
> misdemeanor.
>
> As used in this subdivision, “property of any
> railroad” means any land owned, leased, or
> possessed by a railroad upon which is placed a
> railroad track and the land immediately adjacent
> thereto, to the distance of 20 feet on either side
> of the track, which is owned, leased, or possessed
> by a railroad.
>
> (b) Any person who enters or remains upon any rail
> transit related property owned or operated by a
> county transportation commission or transportation
> authority without permission or whose entry,
> presence, or conduct upon the property interferes
> with, interrupts, or hinders the safe and
> efficient operation of the railline or
> rail-related facility is guilty of a misdemeanor.
The key word in this statute, Ken, is or, not and. Thus, a person doing any of the things listed, including entering railroad property to cross the tracks, is in violation. The "hindering operation" requirement is only one part of the statute, and does not need to be met in all cases for there to be a violation.
The woman would not have been cited by the officer had she not been observed doing what she was doing. From what she submitted to the newspaper, she doesn't deny that she was in violation, just that she feels that the fine is excessive and that she (and others) weren't aware that her actions were illegal because the railroad didn't provide adequate signage - not that the sign wasn't there, which it apparently was, but that it wasn't clear enough and that she thinks it should've also been in Spanish (although she never claims that she's unable to read English). Nothing in the statute requires the railroad or any public agency to do that.
