He Was Charged With a Federal Offense for Running Up a Mountain
Michelino Sunseri broke the trail running record on Grand Teton but was prosecuted for "shortcutting" on a commonly used trail.

When mountain runner Michelino Sunseri climbed and descended Wyoming's Grand Teton in record time last year, he posted information about his route on social media. According to the Justice Department, Sunseri thereby implicated himself in a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.
The National Park Service, which initially recommended that Sunseri be prosecuted for his seemingly inadvertent use of an unapproved trail, reconsidered that referral in May. But the U.S. Attorney's Office in Wyoming was unfazed. Its puzzling prosecutorial persistence provoked criticism from two members of the House Judiciary Committee, who said it epitomized "the problem of overcriminalization."
Reps. Harriet Hageman (R–Wyo.) and Andy Biggs (R–Ariz.) suggested that Sunseri's prosecution violated President Donald Trump's May 9 executive order urging restraint in deploying criminal penalties for regulatory violations. That order, Hageman and Biggs noted in a July 17 letter to Stephanie Sprecher, the acting U.S. attorney for Wyoming, expressed concern about "technical and unintentional regulatory violations that may expose individuals to criminal penalties for conduct they did not know was prohibited."
The fact that Sunseri advertised his route strongly suggests he did not realize he was breaking the law. And as WyoFile noted after Sunseri's bench trial in May, the path that the park service said he should not have taken is "a historic trail so well-used that it's become a skinny singletrack."
Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox notes that "only two tiny and ambiguous signs inform the public that the trail is off-limits." One of those signs, at the top of the trail, said "shortcutting causes erosion." The other sign, at the bottom of the trail, said "closed for regrowth."
Defense attorney Ed Bushnell argued that Sunseri was not "shortcutting," since he was using a long-established trail. Bushnell added that it was unclear whether the "closed" notice referred to the area around the sign or the trail beyond it. "There is no clear prohibition there," Bushnell said. "This is not conspicuous signage."
After Sunseri was cited for using a prohibited trail, Hageman and Biggs said, he "took responsibility for his actions, expressed regret, and volunteered to help officially close the alternate path, which receives regular foot traffic." Federal prosecutors filed criminal charges anyway, and their plea deal offers were onerous given the nature of the violation.
Sunseri's case illustrates the traps set by a code of federal regulations so vast and obscure that even experts can only guess at the number of criminal penalties it authorizes—at least 300,000, they think. While hacking away at that thicket of prohibitions is a daunting task, the least federal prosecutors can do in the meantime is exercise some commonsense discretion.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "6 Months in Jail for Mountain Running?."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nobody is above the law.
If only they had thrown the book at Kate Bush instead
Dude used a trail that was clearly signed "closed for regrowth". Unless his argument is that he is too stupid to know how to read he is guilty.
And it should be CRIMINAL violation to ignore that sign? Give me a fucking break.
The argument is that is was not "clearly" signed. Which I find quite plausible, at least.
Should the two prior posters be given the benefit of the doubt and be taken as sarcastic, or should we condemn them for being incredibly obtuse? To the first I grant clemency, but the second sounds like he means it.
Point being (in case you missed it) that minor transgressions should not literally become a federal case.
But did he break any immigration laws?
JS;dr
JS;dr
No. Cutting. Switchbacks.
We mean it!
Is that as bad as democracy-threatening insurrections? Will violators be shot?
I long was a fan of the National Park Service, and enjoyed visiting both natural and historic parks. And I appreciate the challenges of their conflicting mission to preserve some special places while also providing for visitor enjoyment.
But I have met too many NPS staff who prioritize the preservation of "their" parks. And who also have liberal political agendas and promote those in their quest to "educate" the public. And with the current shut down I see a repeat of when parks closed in 2018-19, as park staff used their authority to "resist". And behind all of this is the constant effort to create more parks, and give them control of more land.
Enough.
So jacob...
The Wyoming prosecutors here are wrong for ignoring trumps exec order... but you've also praised the d.c. prosecutors refusing to prosecute comey and others. Is it about the who?
At least you acknowledged trumps EO to stop this bullshit.
Didn't everyone who went up that trail with strata turned on implicate themselves? Where are the federal charges for the other 10k visitors to that trail?