United States v. Carstens

982 F. Supp. 2d 874, 2013 WL 6085970, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169079
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana
DecidedNovember 20, 2013
DocketNos. 3111101, 3111102, 3111103
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 982 F. Supp. 2d 874 (United States v. Carstens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Carstens, 982 F. Supp. 2d 874, 2013 WL 6085970, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169079 (N.D. Ind. 2013).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

PAUL R. CHERRY, United States Magistrate Judge.

On July 26, 2013, the United States of America appeared by counsel Assistant United States Attorneys Nicholas Padilla and Dean Lanter. Defendant Robert M. Carstens, Jr. appeared in person and by counsel Scott King.

A Bench Trial was begun on three violation citations issued on March 21, 2012, by the United States Department of Interior National Park Service against Defendant Robert M. Carstens, Jr. The U.S. Govern[875]*875ment presented evidence in its case-in-chief, then rested its presentation of evidence.

The parties agree that the primary issue in these combined matters is jurisdictional — whether the National Park Service Rangers had legal authority to enforce federal regulations against Carstens, and issue violation citations against him, given the locations where the alleged violations took place.

Prior to the presentation of evidence by Defendant Carstens in his case-in-chief, the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, that Carstens be permitted to file a written Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal with briefing to follow. On September 13, 2013, Carstens filed his Defendant’s Motion For Acquittal. On October 18, 2013, the United States Government filed its Amended Response Of United States To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss At The Close Of The Government’s Case. The Court ordered that no reply be filed.

In determination of the issues the Court FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1.On March 21, 2012, the United States of America Department of Interior National Park Service issued three citations to Defendant Robert M. Carstens, Jr., alleging the following violations of federal law:

1) Citation 3111101 — Operating A Vehicle Off Designated Route;
2) Citation 3111102 — Launching A Water Craft At An Unauthorized Launch Site;
3) Citation 3111103 — Operating A Personal Water Craft Where Prohibited (not in issue for purposes of the Defendant’s Motion For Acquittal).

2. On June 15, 2012, an Initial Appearance was held at which Carstens pled not guilty to the three charges.

3. On June 14, 2013, a Bench Trial was scheduled for July 26, 2013.

4. On July 26, 2013, a Bench Trial was begun. The United States Government presented evidence, then rested. Upon close of the Government’s presentation of evidence, the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, that Carstens be permitted to file a written Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal, with briefing to follow, and with the Bench Trial to be in recess until ruling on the Motion.

5. On September 13, 2013, Carstens filed his Defendant’s Motion For Acquittal as to Citations 3111101 and 3111102.

6. On October 17, 2013, the Government filed its Response of United States to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at the Close of the Government’s Case; on October 18, 2013, the Government filed its Amended Response (correcting a typographical error).

7. No reply brief was permitted by the Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

8. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a) provides, in part: “After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”

9. The standard of review in this case is whether the government’s evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

10. In making this determination, the court is to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government and determine whether a rational trier of fact [876]*876could have found the essential elements established beyond a reasonable doubt. United, States v. Pree, 408 F.3d 855, 865 (7th Cir.2005).

FINDINGS OF FACT

11. The Indiana Dunes National Lake-shore (the “Park”) is a national park, about 15,000 acres in size, located in far northern Indiana along the shore of Lake Michigan; it is operated by the United States Department of Interior National Park Service (“National Park Service”).

12. The Town of Dune Acres, Indiana, is a small residential community located in far northern Indiana close by the shore of Lake Michigan; it is geographically surrounded by the Park and Lake Michigan shoreline and beach.

13. Robert M. Carstens, Jr. is a resident of the Town of Dune Acres; on behalf of the Town of Dune Acres as the Town’s “Beach Commissioner,” Carstens from time to time issues permits to the Town of Dune Acres residents to launch personal water craft from the beach and operate personal water craft in the nearby Lake Michigan water.

14. The Park follows the National Park Service regulations prohibiting operation of vehicles on a park beach and operation of personal water craft in park waters.

15. In both 2010 and 2011, Michael Bremer, the Park’s Chief Ranger, told Carstens (and sometimes other people) that the operation of vehicles was not allowed on the beach near the Town of Dune Acres and the operation of personal water craft was not allowed in the nearby water of Lake Michigan at any point on the water within 300 feet of the edge of the water.

16. On or about March 12, 2012, Park Ranger Frank Quinto observed Carstens operate a motorized all-terrain vehicle on the Town of Dune Acres beach, recover a personal water craft from the Lake Michigan water, load it on a trailer, and with the all-terrain vehicle pull the trailer and water craft away from the shoreline on and over the beach.

17. On the same date at another time, Park Ranger Quinto observed Carstens operate the personal water craft in the Lake Michigan water within 300 feet of the shoreline (about 10 feet from the shoreline).

18. After Park Ranger Quinto consulted with his supervisor Chief Ranger Bremer, Quinto issued three written citations to Carstens.

19. Within the boundaries of the Park are parcels of land owned by the United States and parcels of land owned by private individuals and entities.

20. The legal description of the boundaries of the Park excludes the Town of Dune Acres, setting the northern boundary of the Town of Dune Acres at “the toe of the dunes.” Tr. Ex. 2B.

21. The toe of a dune is the point where the slope of the dune meets the gentler slope of the beach.

22. Therefore, the beach area between the toe of the dunes and water edge of Lake Michigan north of the Town of Dune Acres lies within the boundaries of the Park and is not a part of the Town of Dune Acres; this is the area in which Carstens operated a motorized all-terrain vehicle and towed a trailer and personal water craft on the beach.

23. At the beach area contiguous to the Town of Dune Acres, the toe of the dunes and the Lake Michigan ordinary high water mark are approximately the same location.

24. According to the Indiana “public trust doctrine,” the beach area between [877]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
982 F. Supp. 2d 874, 2013 WL 6085970, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carstens-innd-2013.