is a quintessential general law enforcement purpose and the exact opposite of a special need this court scott also stated that a special needs analysis requires inquiry into the program out of purposes programatic purposes examination permits the court to look at all the evidence and determine what the primary purposes when you look at all the evidence here i think it's clear the it essential indispensable feature of this particular same information here don't litter don't don't burn campfires and within the designated vary the difference your honor is one in most national parks like a semi national park there's of though there were somebody voluntarily stops to pay a fee america or you are i don't think there's anything in the record i would say my personal experience not that that's something to include that is that they're part they're not law enforcement officers are just park employees i think the critical factor here your honour's though is whether it's a law enforcement officer there are parking place they're not posing questions that are going to listen incriminating swats when you go in you so many national parks nobody says do you have marijuana in your car ok he's clearly posing questions here that are getting a listen incriminating response when he asked people do you have alcohol alcohol is a class a misdemeanor punishable up to one year in prison have i'm sorry to have a if people said oh yeah you know i brought a bottle my to go with my picnic or case of beer he would say well just you know set it next to the truck there you can't take it in parkland where you can pick it up on your way oh well well two things one  there's obviously some type of discretionary enforcement going on here because he didn't extend that courtesy to mr faulkner but it was different if it's a different problem because the fucker was committing a crime and his friends with open container in the car if they everybody else and lance are not committing a crime if they do happen to have prohibited alcohol his testimony was i told him leave it outside the park and they could set it right next to my frock and pick it up after they finished using the part where you're it's set up to try to keep things out of the car that would be unlawful if he sees a crime every two weeks while he's doing that does that make to stop really unlawful  the program matic purpose is not the incidental case with someone to happen that he stops happens to commit a crime that's not what they're looking for the general crime to looking to tell people don't bring alcohol and don't literally used trash bags to enforce you know prevent people from response to the rash of theft vandalism gang activity those are the reasons why they created the checkpoint some think that it's suppose they then stop people and say you know there's a real problem with theft in this park we want you to it might get past like i said the admin test but then you have to look at it under the under the brown three pronged bomb factor because once you have a seizure they have to justify the seizure because there's no suspicion for it but you're out of the thing is the officer here may please the court my name is stanley abe and i'm assisting united states attorney i represent the government in this case i would like to just briefly note about this class a misdemeanor information fortunately or unfortunately tends to be unfortunately all crimes that are committed on b l m property are class a misdemeanor so that includes littering except right and that's because of under the regulations that are promulgated by the secretary of interior that's the penalty that is given to that in reality two people two people go to jail for littering absolutely not but i do want to make that clear that that's just the nature of all b l m offenses what we're looking at here in this case is analyzing whether the not this information checkpoint if you will and we can see that it is a falls within the gamut of the checkpoint types of cases whether or not there is a great great public concern that the united states or in this case the b l m is confronted with and we say that there is now the defendant wants to say that and we are focusing in on the criminal activity associated with why these supplemental rules were promulgated that's one aspect of the reason that the supplemental rules are promulgated but there are other aspects that dealt with fire restrictions and we cannot ignore fire restrictions when dealing with b l m property and that we need to educate the people of the users of the property about particular fire restrictions we need to educate the people that use and enjoy this land about littering restrictions in this case so what the bureau of land management did is they promulgated these supplemental rules to deal with these issues these these grave concerns and again this is case but the the officer did testify in this case the b l m officer did testify that there was a bulletin board which are usually located in the parking lot areas that set forth the supplemental regulations no other stuff to know there was no other sto yeah actually much of it just doesn't three hundred fifty cents or on a mission that's the that's the effort of the v l a if if if it's pretextual in its application if what we're looking for is criminal conduct we're just going to be handing out glad bags were not going to the effort that the government went to to print these bags of fifty cents that set forth the rules and regulations handing it to each individual that comes in the part setting forth that no littering put in this and cetera et cetera these are concerns that the government is trying to address it is not for the purpose of trying to write more tickets now to be on the docket the class a misdemeanor crime officer in charge of this area thought this would just be a good idea well this particular officer is the chief ranger for this particular area and i believe i'm not sure if it's on the record but he basically supervises three agents in that area which covers three zones three different recreational areas governed by that area this particular officer as he testified managed to station ninety eight to ninety nine percent of the time so this officer was here was the individual that was running if you will of this informational checkpoint the officer testified that every car was stopped that every car was was processed it was it was given a bag and the stops were generally on average twenty seconds per stop now depending upon information it may have been longer may have been less if it was a resident cetera and what we're dealing with here was education getting the information out if a crime was committed in his presence and as in this case this officer is not going to ignore that type of offense and as he testified that there were and it is it is an offense to have alcohol on that but what he testified to is in those cases in which he cited people for having just what we call simple possession those are people that were under age that even if you had not been on public property they shouldn't have alcohol there's no reason that an underage individual should have alcohol the options were available to this in this officer you can either leave it here and pick it up on your way out you can turn around and go back those are your choices there's nothing in the record to suggest that this officer was writing these possession of alcohol so it's different in the context of an open container i think the public policy concerns about open container and the problems associated with that kind of offense of different from the body in the car or someone was pointing a gun any of things that was general california well while that was not illicit at the testimony i can't disagree with that analysis that that would be the case but what i w is that had the obvious or you've gone through the checkpoint knowing that this is the way into the recreational and had been patrolling the area and individuals had possession of alcohol or had been littering or had not had the correct fire permits then  would have been issued pursuant to the supplemental rules and i think that that was i mean it's clearly within this officers discretion as to whether or not to to write a ticket after checkpoint he chose not to do it and he testified that this is what i did you can either put your stuff here or turn around and use that somewhere else which i think in light of the concerns that they had pre settlement rules i think address is an important governmental concern in dealing with the nature and the use of the enjoyment the b l m land in this particular case is for the use of all all individuals to come and enjoy the outdoors and do whatever camp or you can camp there i'm sorry but to picnic except that's what this is about and that's what this address this is not for the would be a crime outside the room or inside the island you must write around right as with any officer generally in the field has the discretion whether or not to write a speeding ticket for somebody that is in fact going over the speed limit but don't take that equate that to some sort of arbitrary action on this park there's a lack of check on the part of the government here in this case because yes there is that discretion there it appears that he was actually sizing it properly from the record to set forth or there's nothing to suggest this officer was doing anything unreasonable about how he was running the checkpoint again he's handing out the bags these preprinted bags to protect it it's just like coming in and like for instance i came into the court today and i come into a court every day  and i walk into the building and it's a federal building and there's a there's a metal detector that i've got to go through i can either turn around or go through the metal detector there is an interest of why we do that that is a search if you will in this case it's a seizure analysis though but but it's i can out of turn around or go through it but there is a print interest that we are protecting in doing that there is no notification that when you walk in the building or end in our federal building that you're subject to search there a notice here but again there was notification prior to driving in the checkpoint that this is public land and that there is no alcohol to be but still others with response to an earlier question to the b l m has adopted regulations or done something with respect to these kinds of information checkpoints in the park is that correct that's correct your honor and while it's not out it's not in the record i can tell i think mr lott was wrong i'm a know it's a result of this particular office here here this chief ranger retired and so regulations were promulgated because they were promulgated now i use that word loosely in terms of promulgated but they were written down i learned there's something guidelines about how these will be either in this case or another case which we've noticed is related that question was asked i don't recall if it was asked in this record and lester any thank you your honor i just want to briefly state that they that they have an entry hearing the district court concluded that the purpose of the of the checkpoint was to keep liquor out of an area where liquor was a problem the court also concluded that the balancing analysis with the government taking steps to protect the resource and the public's enjoyment right to use the resources that are pretty significant interest here that after what you're on  it depends on what you mean by anything if he's asking hey do you have marijuana that can't go in the park so leave that with me if it's in a bag but if you got it rolled in a joint and i'm going to cite you for that yes i think if he's asking questions about unlawful substances about things that are a lawful everywhere else but not on the part don't bring them in if you have any check them in the lock with if he is asking questions he can elicit incriminating response testimony was that part of the road and into the recreation site that's all be a lamb land so if he sees somebody coming and they just have a forty ounce between their legs and the caps on that's a crime that's possession of alcohol ok th supplementary rules is a crime so when he's there at the checkpoint on that line asking people do you have alcohol or not and if they say yes not treating it as a criminal or simply holding up well he is signing people