The sign is probably leftover from July 4th. I’m guessing that the park had been made unusable on previous Fourths by the drunk, stupid, and firework-wielding.

It’s creepy when you see “hikers” in flip-flops packing in ammonia, drain-o, propane cylinders, and all of the other makings of a meth lab.

Assuming the “they” here is referring to the glass bottles and not the public places, I can see where they can cut people when broken (the bottles again, not the people).

I’m still having trouble picturing the bottles starting fires, though.

They’re just tactlessly saying what is probably law – if the park isn’t a “dry zone” then all it would take is acting slightly intoxicated (in violation of public intoxication laws I’m sure everywhere has) for you to become a lawful target for search.

And just said it anyway. Cops, ay? Bastards!

Okay, thanks, I’ll believe it, even if I’d probably never think of that explanation myself.

And I think if I saw the close-up of the broken glass in a movie on TV, with the sun rays starting to cause a little bit of smoke on dry grass, while the ominous music plays in the background, before the rest of the movie featuring heroic firefighting and rescue attempts, I’d just say, “Oh, yeah, right. Oh, please.”

IYSWIM.

Guess we’ll have to pick him up and waterboard him for info; Constitution, Litter-awarness, and “America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass” be damned…

“I’m proud to be an American, because at least I know I’m not free”…………………

But here’s the practical result: the only time the exclusionary rule comes before a judge is when a) there’s an illegal search; b) the trial judge allows the illegally obtained evidence (through one of an ever-growing number of exceptions); AND c) the defendant is convicted.

In other words, the only time an appellate judge comes across an illegal search, by definition, it’s a guilty criminal who’s complaining about the search. Nobody wants to let a criminal get away with it, so we find exceptions. Exigent circumstances, inevitable discovery, harmless error . . . the list grows longer.

That’s it–there is no other enforcement mechanism for the 4th amendment. Police have qualified immunity from lawsuit (and the circumstances have to be very extreme to lose that immunity). So when fine upstanding (innocent) citizens of Boulder are illegally searched, they have no recourse. No matter how much money they have, any lawsuit they file will be dismissed. It’s only the criminals who can challenge a search, and hey, if you’re carrying a cooler full of contraband, you don’t really have an expectation of privacy do you?

Unfortunately, in the US, the 4th Amendment is a right without a remedy–according to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, the Exclusionary Rule’s purpose is only to act as a deterrent to future bad conduct by the police, and it “is not a personal constitutional right.” The innocent who are searched without cause can’t sue, and the guilty have no right to have illegal evidence excluded.

A right without a remedy is no right at all.

Only a terrorist would be concerned about having their bags searched.
[/police state apologist]

…and what did the orange sheet on the right say?

Still, if a ranger/cop asked to search my bag, I’d ask where their warrant is, or what’s their probable cause?

@#10
I think the summons is for violations of the glass, etc., not for refusing to comply. Of course that is my damn uppity, civil lib. interpretation that unfortunately seems to have no basis in reality.

If you are ever stopped by a police officer who asks if he/she can search you or your possessions, it is the first thing I’d hand them. Ask them to read it over, paragraph by paragraph, and remind them that it is the Supreme Law of the Land that they are supposed to have taken a sworn oath to defend and protect.

Then try to find out how they could have ever forgotten that sacred oath.

DUI checkpoints are constitutional for analogous reasons.

This sign may be a sneaky attempt at eliminating your “expectation of privacy.” If you have no expectation of privacy, then it’s not a search under the 4th Amendment. Or so they would argue.