United States v. Beasley
| Decision Date | 29 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | 3:16–cr–00013–SI,Case No. 3:16–cr–00011–SI |
| Citation | 184 F.Supp.3d 950 |
| Parties | United States of America, Respondent, v. Connie and James Beasley, Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney, Seth D. Uram, Assistant United States Attorney, and Allie Boyd (certified law student appearing with permission), United States Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon , 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97204. Of Attorneys for Respondent.
William D. Brandt, William D. Brandt, P.C. , 495 State Street, Suite 500B, Salem, OR 97301. Of Attorneys for Defendants–Appellants.
Defendants–Appellants Connie and James Beasley (collectively "the Beasleys" or "Defendants–Appellants") appeal from the judgment of United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta, finding the Beasleys each guilty of the petty offense of conducting work activities on federal lands encompassed by regulation without a special-use authorization. The charges arose from the Beasleys' business of renting all-terrain vehicles ("ATVs") for use at the Sand Lake Recreation Area sand dunes near Pacific City, Oregon. After denying the Beasleys' motions to dismiss, the court held a bench trial on January 8, 2016. Judge Acosta concluded that the Beasleys' business activities violated 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(c) and imposed on each defendant a fine of $300 and a $25 processing fee for a total of $325 collateral forfeiture per violation. The offenses are Class B misdemeanors, which are petty offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 19. The Beasleys now appeal the Magistrate Court's denial of their motions to dismiss and their convictions. For the reasons stated below, the Court affirms both judgments of conviction issued by the Magistrate Court, including affirming the denial of the Beasleys' motions to dismiss.
The court has jurisdiction over this appeal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 58(g)(2)(B). In an appeal from a magistrate court's judgment of conviction, "[t]he scope of the appeal is the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment entered by a district judge." Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2)(D).
The Beasleys own and operate Sandslingers LLC ("Sandslingers"), an ATV rental business, in Pacific City, Oregon. As part of their business, the Beasleys rent ATVs to customers and transport those ATVs to the Sand Lake Recreation Area sand dunes, approximately 8 miles from Sandslingers' office. The public may enter the Sand Lake Recreation Area via two legal points of access: (1) Galloway Road, maintained by Tillamook County; and (2) Derrick Road, maintained by the United States Forest Service ("USFS"). Derrick Road leads to the Derrick Road Dispersed Area, where visitors and ATV riders may park, after paying a day-use fee at a USFS onsite pay station. The USFS uses and maintains the entrance to the Derrick Road Dispersed Area pursuant to an easement (the "Easement") granted to the federal government by private landowners. The Beasleys use the Easement to deliver ATVs to the Sand Lake Recreation Area, just before entering the Derrick Road Dispersed Area. The Beasleys do not have a special use permit that would allow them to conduct commercial activities on federal land.
On August 20, 2015, USFS Officer James Necessary ("Officer Necessary") saw Connie Beasley ("Ms. Beasley") on the Easement just before the entrance to the Derrick Road Dispersed Area. Officer Necessary testified that Ms. Beasley was "outfitting," meaning that she was bringing equipment to a location to make a profit. According to Officer Necessary, Ms. Beasley had a trailer and multiple ATVs with her. Officer Necessary could not tell, however, if Ms. Beasley was picking up or dropping off the ATVs. Officer Necessary talked with Ms. Beasley for more than an hour. She told Officer Necessary that the ATV rental business was the Beasleys' livelihood, and she asked questions about whether her son could continue to deliver ATVs to the area because he was not an "employee" of Sandslingers. Officer Necessary explained that Sandslingers would need a permit to continue outfitting on land regulated by the USFS and that he would not give Ms. Beasley any more warnings.
On August 22, 2015, Officer Necessary and USFS Officer Travis Sisco ("Officer Sisco") saw Brandon Beasley ("Brandon"), whom they knew to be the Beasleys' son, working on some ATVs within the Derrick Road Dispersed Area. Some of the ATVs were Polaris Scramblers, an older style of ATV. Officer Sisco recognized this type of ATV as one of the types rented out by Sandslingers. The officers asked Brandon how business was going, and Brandon responded that "business was good." Officer Sisco testified that Brandon appeared to be refueling or fixing three or four ATVs for people standing nearby. Office Sisco further testified that before that day, he had seen Brandon doing onsite training sessions for other ATV riders. Officer Necessary also testified that on previous occasions, he heard Brandon say that he delivered ATVs for his parents.
On August 23, 2015, while Officer Sisco was patrolling near the Derrick Road Dispersed Area, a man pulled up in a car and asked Officer Sisco where to park. The man explained that he intended to rent ATVs from Sandslingers and that Sandslingers personnel were meeting him there. Officer Sisco then saw James Beasley ("Mr. Beasley") pull up in a black Dodge pickup truck, which Officer Sisco recognized as a Sandslingers vehicle. While parked off to the side of the road just before the entrance to the Derrick Road Dispersed Area, Mr. Beasley started unloading ATVs from a trailer attached to the truck. Officer Sisco also saw Ms. Beasley nearby on the Easement. Ms. Beasley had with her a trailer attached to a white Toyota FJ Cruiser. Ms. Beasley's trailer also contained ATVs. A day later, Officer Necessary had a telephone conversation with Ms. Beasley and again told her she needed to go through the proper permitting process to continue outfitting on USFS land.
On August 26, 2015, Officer Necessary visited the Sandslingers' office in Pacific City. He spoke with Ms. Beasley, who told Officer Necessary that she thought her son could continue delivering ATVs to the Sand Lake Recreation Area because he was not employed by Sandslingers. Officer Necessary explained that Sandslingers would still need a permit, even if only Brandon delivered ATVs to the entrance of the Derrick Road Dispersed Area. Officer Necessary then issued to Ms. Beasley Central Violations Bureau ("CVB") Violation Notice Number F4316393 for conducting work activity or services without a special-use authorization in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(c).
One month later, on September 26, 2015, Officer Necessary observed Mr. Beasley at the entrance to the Derrick Road Dispersed Area with a trailer full of ATVs. Officer Necessary saw between five and eight ATVs. A group of people was gathered nearby, and Officer Necessary believed that the group was waiting to pick up ATVs from Mr. Beasley. None of the people appeared to be assisting Mr. Beasley with unloading or refueling the ATVs. Later that day, Officer Necessary met Mr. Beasley at Sandslingers' office and asked him why Sandslingers continued to outfit on USFS land without a permit. Mr. Beasley responded that "they had a right to be out there." Officer Necessary then issued to Mr. Beasley CVB Violation Notice Number F4316395 for conducting work activity or services without a special-use authorization in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(c).
According to Officers Sisco and Necessary, the Sandslingers operation affected Forest Service land in at least two ways. First, the Beasleys loaded and unloaded ATVs on the side of the Easement near the entrance to the Derrick Road Dispersed Area. In contrast, individual recreational visitors to the sand dunes park in designated parking spots within the Derrick Road Dispersed Area, after paying an entrance fee, before unloading ATVs. The Beasleys' activity in loading and unloading ATVs sometimes congested the area and blocked the pay station where visitors pay their mandatory day-use fee. Second, Sandslingers sometimes rents ATVs to people who have little experience driving ATVs. Officer Sisco knew of at least one accident involving a Sandslingers customer and had safety concerns about Sandslingers' operations and inexperienced customers.
USFS regulation 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(c) prohibits "[s]elling or offering for sale any merchandise or conducting any kind of work activity or service unless authorized by Federal law, regulation, or special-use authorization." The prohibition applies when "[a]n act or omission occurs in the National Forest System or on a National Forest System road or trail." 36 C.F.R. § 261.1(a)(1). The prohibition also applies when "[a]n act or omission affects, threatens, or endangers property of the United States administered by the Forest Service." 36 C.F.R. § 261.1(a)(2).
In order for someone to be found guilty of violating 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(c), the government must prove three elements: (1) that the defendant was conducting work activity or service; (2) that the work activity or service occurred on lands encompassed by the regulation; and (3) that the work activity or service occurred without a special-use authorization. United States v. Parker , 761 F.3d 986, 993 (9th Cir.2014). The Beasleys dispute only the first two elements. Ms. Beasley also disputes the sufficiency of the CVB Violation Notice she received.
The Beasleys argue that the government failed to present sufficient evidence that they engaged in work activity or service on the dates of the alleged offenses. The government acknowledges that Ms. Beasley did not commit a violation on August 26, 2015. Rather, she was cited on that day for violations that occurred on August 20, 22, and 23, 2015. Ms. Beasley argues that the evidence is insufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial