Led Away In Handcuffs Update Update

[Andy A]

Good Morning all interested beach user SoWalers. Eduardo Gonzalez's pretrial hearing was scheduled for tomorrow morning in Judge David Green's court. I am informed the case has been dismissed by the Attorney General's office. I do not have any details. I have called the Attorney General's office (850) 892-8080 and they said they would have an investigator return my call. So far, no call back. I, for one, would really like to know why the case was dismissed. How about all of you?

 

[seacrestkristi]

Yes, we would!!! :funn: :funn: :funn:

 

[Bob]

the state wants to avoid litigation....

 

[Miss Kitty]

They know that SJ doesn't want to sit on anymore juries. :roll:

 

[pgurney]

The owner dropped the charges because they feared the outcome.

 

[kathydwells]

They know that SJ doesn't want to sit on anymore juries. :roll:

:funn:

 

[Smiling JOe]

They know that SJ doesn't want to sit on anymore juries. :roll:

Now there is a jury on which I would love to sit.

I'd also love to hear why the Attorney General dismissed the case. Is it because he wants to avoid going there, or perhaps he thinks it is a ridiculous case since the public has been using the beach for a long, long time?

Thanks for giving us the 411, Andy A, because I was planning on driving up there tomorrow to get the inside report.

 

[BeachSiO2]

It will be interesting to see the reasoning of the Attorney General. I can tell you that the Solicitor General who is 2nd under the AG was the one that represented the FDEP in the beach nourishment lawsuit at the State Supreme Court. That case hinged on public/private ownership before and after a project, and the customary use doctrine was discussed. Also, Governor Crist allowed the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs to continue to serve as counsel for Walton County. At that time, it appeared that the state believed in the public's right to use the beach.

 

[Minnie]

Is this area in question clearly marked and posted, as private property, no tresspassing?

If not, I can't see they had any legal ground to stand on.

Or actually I guess that would be legal sand to stand on.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Is this area in question clearly marked and posted, as private property, no tresspassing?

If not, I can't see they had any legal ground to stand on.

Or actually I guess that would be legal sand to stand on.

It isn't well marked at all. At The Retreat, the private property signs are located at the foot of the cliff/dunes, at the private walkovers. Not on the beaches. The neighboring properties' private property signs are located at the western and eastern ends of the beach, violating the laws regarding items left on the beach overnight.