Fireworks justice? Resident fired up
San Jose makes alleged violators pay $500 before appeal hearing
SAN JOSE >> Amy Guzules, 50, doesn’t know a cherry bomb from a Roman candle, and she says she certainly doesn’t know who shot off the fireworks near her home to celebrate the Golden State Warriors championship win on June 12.
It didn’t particularly bother her. As complaints sprouted on the Nextdoor neighborhood forum, she posted a message saying the Warriors just won — you’re going to hear some noise.
But a neighbor was annoyed enough to file a complaint through the city’s new online fireworks reporting system. And certain enough about the source to finger Guzules, one of several dozen residents facing a $500 fine for allegedly setting off fireworks in the city since June. She can appeal the fine, but she has to pay the $500 before the appeal hearing.
“I’ll follow the process, but I would rather not have to put out the $500 to find out who said I did it,” she said. “It seems to me that the city shouldn’t force payment before a hearing — who knows when the hearing date will be? And when will I see a refund?”
While so-called “safe and sane” fireworks are legal in Gilroy, pyrotechnics of any kind are illegal in the rest of the county. But come July 4, amateur displays inevitably erupt, with many using commercialgrade fireworks that are loud, explosive, dangerous and illegal everywhere in California. That leads to numerous complaints and more firefighters and police assigned to duty on Independence Day.
In an attempt to deal with the problem, San Jose began using the online fireworks reporting system in 2016, but this was the first year that citations were issued based on complaints submitted to the city. The system enables a person to report when and where fireworks were used, the identity of the person using the fireworks and include evidence such as a video or photo.
There were 1,075 complaints logged between June 1 and July 9. That resulted in 161 warning letters and 45 citations.
San Jose spokeswoman Cheryl Wessling said all cases are reviewed for merit before action is taken.
“If several reports came in from different sources that said fireworks were taking place out of certain addresses, that’s a signal that something is going on at that address,” she said. “In most cases, a phone call was made to the person who filed the complaint and a discussion was held — ‘Do you feel certain, did you see it yourself, are you willing to testify?’ ”
Michael Tran, who lives three houses down from Guzules at the corner of Garrison Circle and Hayes Avenue, got hit twice for a total of $1,200. One was for a July 4 incident, the other June 7. He said he is not responsible for either and has had people living next door and across the street sign a document stating that he and his family are good neighbors — he hopes that will help make his case for innocence.
“Now I have to pay for something I didn’t do,” said Tran. “But I know for sure whoever said we did this, they will not show up at the hearing.”
A review of the online reports obtained by this newspaper showed that Guzules had a single complaint against her, which stated “Several high fireworks” were seen at 8:50 p.m. June 12. The submitter agreed to testify if necessary.
However, Wessling said that any citation given based on a sole complaint involved a discussion with the fire marshal, and confirmed that for both Guzules and Tran — who had two complaints — the fire marshal contacted the submitter for more information before sending out a citation.
Like Guzules, the descriptions filed for the fireworks at Tran’s home were terse; one said “Single M80 type firework,” the other “M80s.” Neither had photos or video attached.
“It doesn’t surprise me that they have no pics or video,” Guzules said. “No one in my family was outside. But it does surprise me that they’d issue a citation with only one report and no pics or video.”
She wondered if her post on the Nextdoor forum about noise following the Warriors win triggered a retaliatory report by someone who didn’t like it.
“It would be really crummy for someone to report me based on an online comment,” she said.
The submitted complaint type of reporting system is not unique to San Jose. The nation’s largest legal pyrotechnics distributor, TNT Fireworks, unveiled an app called “Nail ’Em” in 2016 that allows citizens to map, date and photograph fireworks offenses. The data can be accessed instantly by participating cities and notify first-responders of in-progress violations, be used after-the-fact as evidence to cite parties, and provide information on trends and hot spots for future enforcement.
“San Jose patterned their app after ours,” said TNT spokesman Dennis Revell, “and even though they decided to do their own and we didn’t market ours there, it was used quite significantly — we had 481 reports out of San Jose.”
Revell said those reports are passed along to cities after the fact even if they are not using Nail ’Em, but San Jose officials were not aware of receiving such information.
Nail ’Em is promoted and used in more than 50 jurisdictions statewide, Revell said, including Pacifica and Manteca.
Manteca had 316 reports that resulted in 24 citations, said Manteca Fire Marshal Lantz Rey. But unlike San Jose, the majority came out of real-time alerting crews in the field, who would then write violations based on evidence they found when responding — directly seeing fireworks in action, unused fireworks, recently fired mortar tubes. They’ve only had one party appeal the $750 citation — which, as in San Jose, must be paid in advance.
Guzules compared it to how traffic tickets used to be handled until state judicial policymakers changed the rules in 2015, ending requirements that fines be paid before someone could challenge them. The ACLU had called such policies an unconstitutional violation of due process that can be a big hit for those who cannot afford such a fine.
Wessling said the city does have a hardship process for those who cannot afford to pay their fines, and added that this is the first year of the online reporting system and some kinks may need to be ironed out.
“The process we’re using does have legal standing,” she said, “but it’s possible these recent events will reveal that the city should course correct on its process for citation issuance. It will be important to have the hearing officers make the determination of sufficiency of evidence as we discuss the merits or lack thereof of how citations were issued.”