Those facing federal charges should expect federal prosecutors to take them to court. This applies to offenses committed in the National Park system, which falls under federal jurisdiction. However, a local California agency law allows National Park Service (NPS) rangers to file criminal charges and negotiate plea deals for illegal acts allegedly committed within the parks’ borders. A daredevil facing charges for using a parachute during a 2025 leap from Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park wants the Department of Justice to do its job instead.
After the court denied his motion to disqualify the federal law enforcement officers at Yosemite, aka Park Rangers, from acting as prosecutors in his misdemeanor petty offense in September 2026, Jack Propeck filed a motion to reconsider the order through his assistant federal defenders on October 19, 2026. Propeck argues that while Rule 180 allows the employing federal agency or department to designate an officer, agent, or employee to serve as a prosecutor on its behalf, the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) failed to exercise that authority.
If it comes as a shock that non-attorney NPS Rangers can act with prosecutorial power before magistrate judges in federal court in the Eastern District of California over charges occurring on public lands, you’re probably not alone in your surprise. While Propeck’s challenge on a technicality may not work, he was willing to take a legal leap of faith.
What Is a Park Ranger’s Authority in Yosemite?
As part of the Department of the Interior, agents of the NPS serve as law enforcement in federal territory designated as national monuments and parks such as Yosemite and Yellowstone National Park. Known for keeping the federal properties safe and assessing fines, National Park Rangers also have jurisdiction to arrest offenders for crimes ranging from cultivating marijuana to vandalism.
Each U.S. District Court has its own set of rules. Rule 180(b)(4) of the Eastern District of California permits a federal agency or department to assign one of its officers, agents, or employees to appear as a prosecutor on its behalf, provided the individual has performed four or more hours of training with the USAO within the previous two years. The rule further stipulates that the USAO is to act in a supervisory role.
Yosemite National Park in California is one of the NPS’s brightest jewels, with 4.28 million visitors in 2025. It boasts sights such as El Capitan and Yosemite Valley. One of those guests was Propeck, who was charged by United States Park Ranger Cody Hays for allegedly BASE-jumping off Glacier Point in October 2025 and using a parachute, which is illegal on federal lands. Ranger Hays attested that an anonymous tip led him to a video posted on Propeck’s social media site showing the leap, with the jumper wearing a distinctive wingsuit and sunglasses also worn in other posted videos. His reasonable suspicion led to probable cause after FBI data allowed him to confirm the presence of Propeck’s vehicle in Yosemite at the time of the jump.
Propeck claimed the video wasn’t of him, even though it appeared to be. Propeck later claimed he’d used artificial intelligence to superimpose his face onto the actual jumper. Ranger Hays filed a criminal complaint against Propeck on December 12, 2025 (presumably after rolling his eyes).
Can a Park Ranger Make a Plea Deal?
According to court filings, the NPS Park Ranger Hays handled the prosecution and offered Propeck a plea deal for 18 months. Details of the plea deal were not released. In July 2026, Propeck filed a motion to disqualify the NPS from serving as prosecutor on statutory grounds, but U.S. Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta denied it on September 15, stating that Rule 180 was not facially invalid and that Propeck had not proven there was an impermissible delegation of prosecutorial authority by the USAO.
Propeck’s motion for reconsideration focuses on the latter. He asserts that the NPS Park Ranger who made the plea-deal offer was appointed by the NPS, not the USAO. His motion also cites an email between his counsel and the assigned assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), in which the AUSA responds to a question about the plea with “What did [the Rule 180 NPS representative] say his understanding was? If he said 18 months then that’s the position.” [sic] Propeck claims this shows the AUSA was not acting in a supervisory role and hadn’t established the government’s position in the ranger’s offer. It also cites a former Yosemite Legal Officer who states that he was “authorized to extend plea offers and negotiate terms” he found “fair and equitable without any consultation.”
While the idea of a park ranger with as little as four hours of training handling misdemeanor offenses with the authority of a federal prosecutor may raise a few eyebrows, Propeck’s motion may seem like a Hail Mary. Given that the term of imprisonment for a federal petty offense is six months, the purported 18 months mentioned in the plea deal is likely to be either probation or a ban from national parks (or both). If so, the wisdom of demanding that the USAO take over the prosecution may be questionable.
