tickets and fines for detecting

[Clay Diggins]

Clay, are you aware that verbage like that exists in EVERY single park in the entire USA ? In some form or fashion. Yup, even in parks that have never had an issue before. And even parks where people have "gotten permission" (as if that were needed). So that tells me that ........ while it *could* be applied, yet it doesn't *necessarily* apply. It all depends on mood, image, whim, luck , etc..... But I do not consider it to mean "no detecting", lest we all give up every beach, park, school, forest, etc......

I wonder why we never heard back from the relic-revivor on this ?? Are you still there relic-revivor ? Did you fight the ticket ? If you need the past incident of "dismissed" in that city (when this had happened before to someone), let me know, and I can maybe find the date and copy of that for you. That plus your having called in ahead, will most certainly get this one dismissed too.

Actually Tom the San Francisco Parks and Ports Code are the only regulations with that copyrighted wording. You won't find it anywhere else.

My point agrees with yours though I think. If the man doesn't want you poking around in a park or public place he has enough to cite you. I imagine that's true in most places except the federally managed public lands open to entry, permitted private land and locally designated public detecting areas.

You say you could fight that ticket and and have it "dismissed" (but not won?) but you haven't provided any information here how that would be done. Care to share with your fellow detectorists how to get a ticket in San Francisco dismissed? I'm sure there are at least a few of us here who would find that information useful.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

..... that copyrighted wording. You won't find it anywhere else....

Maybe not with that type/style wording. But in SOME FORM OR FASHION: every single park in the USA has verbage that dis-allows "alter" or "molest" or "deface" or "vandalize". And "Take", "remove", "harvest", etc...... The exact verbage is a moot point. Just saying, all public land has some variations of dis-allowance for that.

I mean, duh, do you think there's any place that "allows" vandalism? Any place that "allows" you to help yourself to the park tables, harvest the sod or roses to use at your own yard ? etc....

..... If the man doesn't want you poking around in a park or public place he has enough to cite you.....

Correct. Heck, he could even cite you under codes that dis-allow "annoyances", I suppose, if he wanted. Or if he saw you pocket a ring you found, could cite you under "lost & found" codes. IT'S ENDLESS ! So the *real* question is not "what can be construed to apply to us" (lest we all might as well give up this hobby right now). The REAL question is: What is generally applied, and is there *realistically* any imminent problems.

And the answer to that is, that rarely ever is anyone truly cited for md'ing innocuous run-of-the-mill parks, where such codes are present. Tickets for "sensitive historic monuments" ? Yes perhaps. But run-of-mill parks, schools, beaches? No. We are 99.9% of the time seen as harmless geeks. And if someone thinks you're about to leave marks/holes, you might get a scram at best. (so just avoid that singular griper lookie-lou in the future).

....permitted private land and locally designated public detecting areas....

Huh ? I have never seen such areas. Eg.: an area of a park , or an entire park, with a sign saying "metal detecting allowed here". Or a park with a name such as "such and such md'ing park" (as you might imagine "soccer field", or "baseball diamond" and "tot park". And now "md'ing park" ? No, I don't know of any such designated field just for md'ing. Nor do I believe we need any such express allowance. Any more than you'd need an express allowance to skip stones on a pond, or fly a frisbee, etc....

..... Care to share with your fellow detectorists how to get a ticket in San Francisco dismissed? I'm sure there are at least a few of us here who would find that information useful.

Yes I have. Re-read my posts in this thread. Also notice that I asked the relic-revivor fellow to shed more light on the exact wording (ie.: the exact "offense") that the ticket lists. Eg.: does it say "metal detecting" ? "digging"? "destruction/altering" ? etc... He never answered.

But I can sort of answer anyhow, on the contingency:

a) if the ticket said "metal detecting", well presto, there IS NO specific prohibition of md'ing in SF city parks.

b) if the ticket were for alter, deface, molest, destroy, vandalize, tamper, etc.... then presto: if you/he leaves not trace, then you haven't alterED or defacED anything. Now have you ?

c) The guy called in ahead and was told "yes". Granted, I don't recommend that as a precaution, but ...... he did it, and he might as well use that "yes" in his favor

d) if the ticket were for "dig", then yes, that becomes a bit more problematic. I have a great comeback for that, and have posted the semantics to get around that too. As to whether or not it gets "sold" to a judge, is another story. BUT SO TOO IS ANY defense you give a judge for ANY ticket. I mean, let's be dreadfully honest here: The entire process is not cut & dried. Any judge is free to accept or reject ANY explanation, defense, etc.... He can be utterly capricious and unfair , or he can be cool and friendly and understanding. Because things like this are NOT 'cut & dried'. They very much ARE up for grey-area interprepations, whims, moods, mental images of the person listening to you, etc.....

But does that mean that JUST because some isolated person somewhere "might not like it", that the rest of us should therefore grovel for permission and blessings before we start ? No. Not in my opinion.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

post-script: On the individual known instance I've heard of, where a SF md'r got a ticket, here's how that went down when he had his day in court:

He waited his turn in the cattle call line up. Ie.: shoplifters, vagrancy, traffic tickets, etc.... His turn came. His rehearsed lines were something like this:

"Your honor, I don't know what this is all about. I was just metal detecting in the park. It's a harmless hobby where we look for loose change, etc..... I had looked up in city park's codes/laws, and saw no laws forbidding or addressing this. And this hobby has gone on for decades now without issue here. We do a public service by removing metal debri, we aren't harming anyone. And the next thing I knew, this cop was writing me a ticket. And ......."

The md'r couldn't even finish his rehearsed script! As he's stating his case, the judge is simultaneously reading the ticket paperwork. Before the md'r can even finish his planned lines, the judge pounded his gavel and said "dismissed". And promptly went to the next person in the cattle call line.

 

[cudamark]

We need more judges like this guy!

 

[Captain Caveman]

Awesome!

 

[Clay Diggins]

Maybe not with that type/style wording. But in SOME FORM OR FASHION: every single park in the USA has verbage that dis-allows "alter" or "molest" or "deface" or "vandalize". And "Take", "remove", "harvest", etc...... The exact verbage is a moot point. Just saying, all public land has some variations of dis-allowance for that.

I mean, duh, do you think there's any place that "allows" vandalism? Any place that "allows" you to help yourself to the park tables, harvest the sod or roses to use at your own yard ? etc....



Correct. Heck, he could even cite you under codes that dis-allow "annoyances", I suppose, if he wanted. Or if he saw you pocket a ring you found, could cite you under "lost & found" codes. IT'S ENDLESS ! So the *real* question is not "what can be construed to apply to us" (lest we all might as well give up this hobby right now). The REAL question is: What is generally applied, and is there *realistically* any imminent problems.

And the answer to that is, that rarely ever is anyone truly cited for md'ing innocuous run-of-the-mill parks, where such codes are present. Tickets for "sensitive historic monuments" ? Yes perhaps. But run-of-mill parks, schools, beaches? No. We are 99.9% of the time seen as harmless geeks. And if someone thinks you're about to leave marks/holes, you might get a scram at best. (so just avoid that singular griper lookie-lou in the future).



Huh ? I have never seen such areas. Eg.: an area of a park , or an entire park, with a sign saying "metal detecting allowed here". Or a park with a name such as "such and such md'ing park" (as you might imagine "soccer field", or "baseball diamond" and "tot park". And now "md'ing park" ? No, I don't know of any such designated field just for md'ing. Nor do I believe we need any such express allowance. Any more than you'd need an express allowance to skip stones on a pond, or fly a frisbee, etc....




Yes I have. Re-read my posts in this thread. Also notice that I asked the relic-revivor fellow to shed more light on the exact wording (ie.: the exact "offense") that the ticket lists. Eg.: does it say "metal detecting" ? "digging"? "destruction/altering" ? etc... He never answered.

But I can sort of answer anyhow, on the contingency:

a) if the ticket said "metal detecting", well presto, there IS NO specific prohibition of md'ing in SF city parks.

b) if the ticket were for alter, deface, molest, destroy, vandalize, tamper, etc.... then presto: if you/he leaves not trace, then you haven't alterED or defacED anything. Now have you ?

c) The guy called in ahead and was told "yes". Granted, I don't recommend that as a precaution, but ...... he did it, and he might as well use that "yes" in his favor

d) if the ticket were for "dig", then yes, that becomes a bit more problematic. I have a great comeback for that, and have posted the semantics to get around that too. As to whether or not it gets "sold" to a judge, is another story. BUT SO TOO IS ANY defense you give a judge for ANY ticket. I mean, let's be dreadfully honest here: The entire process is not cut & dried. Any judge is free to accept or reject ANY explanation, defense, etc.... He can be utterly capricious and unfair , or he can be cool and friendly and understanding. Because things like this are NOT 'cut & dried'. They very much ARE up for grey-area interprepations, whims, moods, mental images of the person listening to you, etc.....

But does that mean that JUST because some isolated person somewhere "might not like it", that the rest of us should therefore grovel for permission and blessings before we start ? No. Not in my opinion.

Tom there are several parks I know of that specifically allow metal detecting. One of the largest coin hunts in the nation is held in Apache Junction's Prospector Park. Quartzsite has a large area specifically for metal detecting. There are dozens of sponsored hunts in city parks in Arizona in season. Additionally there are millions of square miles of federally managed public lands open to metal detecting as well as specific areas that are restricted but still specifically allow metal detecting.

Private lands are always open to detecting with written permission of the owner. With very little effort detectorists will find that their options are virtually endless. All without any need to sneak around or hunt in the dark. The most successful detectorists I know never hunt public parks or tot lots. The good stuff requires a little more effort but the payoff justifies that effort.

I specifically mentioned "citation" not a ticket because every ticket has to "cite" the code number that was violated. Not "metal detecting" "digging" "destruction/altering" but the actual code has to be violated before there can be a ticket.

Arguing in court about what constitutes "digging" will not get you a dismissal but pointing out that the code cited doesn't apply will. Arguing about the fine points of the meaning of words will just PO the Judge because it's his job to define the meaning - not yours.

Often cops that are fed up with someone will "cite" a general provision that doesn't really apply because they know 98% of people cited will just pay the amount suggested on the ticket. Judges know this so when someone does challenge the citation often they have no choice but to dismiss the charge because the facts don't fit the cited code. Not because the person wasn't guilty of breaking some law but because the cited code number the cop wrote down did not fit the infraction.

Next time you point to someone "winning" against a "ticket" look deeper as to what the cited code was. People are not convicted of "digging" they are convicted of violation of a legal code. As all cops and any 2 bit lawyer knows most "tickets" are dismissed on technicalities - not because there was no infraction or the person was "innocent".

I'm glad we are in agreement that just about anyone digging targets in a public area that doesn't specifically allow digging can be cited. I don't know how that has any relationship to groveling or begging permission? Not my style and a pretty poor way of characterizing your fellow detectorists that do care about whether they can detect an area legally.

If the local badge wants you to stop digging your best bet is to - stop digging. Without specific protection under the law you really can't win that argument short of a technicality as I pointed out above. The most successful strategy is to appear confident and respectful. Don't leave a mess, don't appear to be sneaking around and don't get in arguments with your fellow citizens or government employees. That same strategy applies to just about anything you do in life, not just metal detecting.

 

[cudamark]

Most of that sounds good, but, I disagree that you need specific permission to do a certain activity. The way I read our constitution, I believe we can do anything we want until there is a law prohibiting that activity. In absence of such a law, we are by default permitted to do it. I agree that arguing about it in the field with a LEO or someone else in charge is not the way to go, but, arguing in court is exactly where it should be done. As long as you're respectful and present a logical case base on current regs, any good judge will respect that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom there are several parks I know of that specifically allow metal detecting. ....

Sure. Yes. Some parks even have implemented "permits". Others have express allowances (perhaps detailing certain times of year, or outlining that as long as you don't disturb plants and archaeological resources, etc...). So in that sense, yes: there are place with "specific allowance" for our hobby. But what do you say about those places that say nothing on the issue ? Ie.: neither expressly allowed, nor expressly prohibited ? Ie.: "silent on the subject"

In that case, in the absence of a prohibition (ie.: silent on the subject), then I'd say it's not dis-allowed. Do you agree ? Otherwise what you'd be saying that is unless we have an EXPRESS ALLOWANCE , that it is either a) something we need permission for, or b) dis-allowed, till expressly allowed. If so, then why don't we hold up that same standard for flying frisbees? (it could poke someone's eye out). Playing jump rope? (it could "annoy" someone), etc....

.....I specifically mentioned "citation" not a ticket because every ticket has to "cite" the code number that was violated. Not "metal detecting" "digging" "destruction/altering" but the actual code has to be violated before there can be a ticket.....

Huh ? I lost ya there bro.

......Arguing in court about what constitutes "digging" will not get you a dismissal but pointing out that the code cited doesn't apply will. Arguing about the fine points of the meaning of words will just PO the Judge because it's his job to define the meaning - not yours......

Uh, so let me see if I understand this correctly: If you were skipping stones on the pond. And a cop came up to give you a ticket for "digging". Are you saying you WOULDN'T dispute the ticket by disputing that skipping stones does not constitute digging ?

It seems to me that you MOST CERTAINLY WOULD "argue in court" and dispute the "meaning of words", if such a ticket were given to you. And no, not all judges are P.O.'D if someone disputes that a ticket doesn't apply, etc... Isn't that their job to see through to the grey areas, and listen to the appeals of the person appealing ? I mean, sure, perhaps some get "P.O.'D" (some can be quite stern), but on the other hand, they routinely dismiss things too, because they see John Q. Public's rationale for why the ticket should be dismissed. That's their job as a judge afterall. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

.... so when someone does challenge the citation often they have no choice but to dismiss the charge because the facts don't fit the cited code. Not because the person wasn't guilty of breaking some law but because the cited code number the cop wrote down did not fit the infraction......

Strangely Clay, I agree with you. I'm sure there are "dismissals" that don't necessarily mean "such & such activity is therefore allowed".

But on the other hand, if you and I want to hunt parks, WHAT IS OUR CHOICES? Oh sure, you can try to do preventative actions by "getting permission" ahead of time, such that you'd never get a ticket (but as you can see from many posts, not even THAT is bullet-proof to 'prevent a ticket'). And the bigger downside of this "asking ahead" is you can also get a "no" where, quite frankly, perhaps no one would ever have cared less.

So I hate to say it, but the odd-ball fluke "ticket" (that someone could just get dismissed) is almost like .... well ..... we md'rs just have to have a tough skin. I mean you are simply NOT going to get every last person to "roll out the red carpets for you". And in my 35+ yrs. of this, I have NEVER gotten a ticket (despite being as brazen as they come). So if, for some reason, I had one now that I either a) fought and got dismissed, or b) just paid the silly $100 and forgot about it, I would actually just figure that's the risk I took. Ie.: the cost of my hobby. Do I like it? OF COURSE NOT! But what are my choices ? Sit at home and take up needle-point ? I mean, sometimes we gotta just grow a set of b@lls and just go detecting for pete's sake .

..... The most successful strategy is to appear confident and respectful. Don't leave a mess, don't appear to be sneaking around and don't get in arguments with your fellow citizens or government employees. That same strategy applies to just about anything you do in life, not just metal detecting.

agreed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..., I believe we can do anything we want until there is a law prohibiting that activity. In absence of such a law, we are by default permitted to do it....

Well, yes, sure. But the "devil is in the details". Because I suppose an over-zealous cop, or an over-skittish md'r, could say or worry that ANCILLARY verbage (alter, deface, molest, disturb, etc...) can be a "law prohibiting".

...... arguing in court is exactly where it should be done. As long as you're respectful and present a logical case base on current regs, any good judge will respect that....

Correct. As un-pleasant as this may be, yet from time to time, that's the purpose of the courts to "sort this stuff out". Example: A friend of mine, on a motorcycle, drove against the painted lines at a city event parade traffic re-route thing. It was confusing because some OTHER traffic director guy had (he thought) POINTED him to go that direction.

And a block later, ANOTHER cop saw him driving the wrong way , and gave him a ticket. He tried to explain that he was confused, and he thought he saw event personnel pointing him that way. But to no avail. The ticket was a silly $100 or whatever. My friend decided to fight it. He explained to the judge that the street layout for this event was confusing, and he thought gate personnel were directing him in a certain way, etc.... The judge banged his gavel and dismissed it.

 

[cudamark]

I agree with Tom, ticket or citation, tax or fee......the distinction escapes me.......

 

[cudamark]

Well, yes, sure. But the "devil is in the details". Because I suppose an over-zealous cop, or an over-skittish md'r, could say or worry that ANCILLARY verbage (alter, deface, molest, disturb, etc...) can be a "law prohibiting".

That's where that should be decided if you should happen to get a ticket/citation. Cite the intent of the law when it was enacted, (I.E. to keep people from landscaping their own property by taking flora from the park) including an early date of it helps your case, and to show it precedes the advent of metal detecting. Most park rules regarding such things as the alter, deface, molest, etc. have been on the books for decades, long before metal detecting as a hobby began.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

A friend of mine, on a motorcycle, drove against the painted lines at a city event parade traffic re-route thing. It was confusing because some OTHER traffic director guy had (he thought) POINTED him to go that direction.

And a block later, ANOTHER cop saw him driving the wrong way , and gave him a ticket. He tried to explain that he was confused, and he thought he saw event personnel pointing him that way. But to no avail. The ticket was a silly $100 or whatever. My friend decided to fight it. He explained to the judge that the street layout for this event was confusing, and he thought gate personnel were directing him in a certain way, etc.... The judge banged his gavel and dismissed it.

The same kinda thing happened to a friend of mine once. He was traveling the wrong way down a one way street, a cop stopped him and asked if he had seen the arrows. To which he replied "Hell I didn't even see the Indians!" They asked if he was drinking... He asked if they were buying... They laughed and laughed... He still owes me for the bail money!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... He still owes me for the bail money!....

Funny story. I'm sure that, yes, there are speeding tickets, driving against arrow tickets, etc... that are NOT dismissed. Sure. But in those cases, it was a clear case of a) breaking a speed limit, and b) driving against arrows. Not what we are talking about here, eh ? Where ancillary (ie.: grey catch-all verbage) could *try* to be applied to us. Because the mere fact that detecting goes on ALL THE TIME without issue, at SCORES of public parks, beaches, forests, etc.... tells you it's not quite so clear as a) exceeding speed limit, or b) driving against arrows.

It's one of those subjective decision things (arbitrary, grey) that isn't at all like clear-cut breaking the laws. That is, unless there were truly a specific law that said "no md'ing". Then in that case, yes, it would be like your story (with bail and so forth).

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Funny story. I'm sure that, yes, there are speeding tickets, driving against arrow tickets, etc... that are NOT dismissed. Sure. But in those cases, it was a clear case of a) breaking a speed limit, and b) driving against arrows. Not what we are talking about here, eh ? Where ancillary (ie.: grey catch-all verbage) could *try* to be applied to us. Because the mere fact that detecting goes on ALL THE TIME without issue, at SCORES of public parks, beaches, forests, etc.... tells you it's not quite so clear as a) exceeding speed limit, or b) driving against arrows.

It's one of those subjective decision things (arbitrary, grey) that isn't at all like clear-cut breaking the laws. That is, unless there were truly a specific law that said "no md'ing". Then in that case, yes, it would be like your story (with bail and so forth).

All charges were dropped in that case Tom. It went to jury trial, the Prosecutor could not prove Indians were actually present, and it's not illegal to ask a cop if he is buying the beer.

The Devil is in the details Tom! Ya gotta read the fine print... (Last edited by Nugs Bunny; Yesterday at 11:42 PM. Reason: And I promise you this is 100% true satire!)

The incident never happened and the friend doesn't exist, it was a joke. I creatively used the 'edit' feature to add my disclaimer right after I originally posted. Take a second look... uhm... I mean a CLOSER look at post #220. C'mon Tom, you know I'm a comedian!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

bunny-nugs: ok, got it

 

[Clay Diggins]

I agree with Tom, ticket or citation, tax or fee......the distinction escapes me.......

I see it escapes both of you. Perhaps a civics or law course would help you understand the Republican form of government? This is a system based on public law - not on what you or a cop believes the law might be.

On your "ticket" you will find a written description of what the cop saw (digging, peeing, jaywalking, marijuana use, speeding, parking). In and of itself those acts are not necessarily a crime. For example you can pee or park completely legally in most circumstances. Unless the cop "cites" the law or statute that makes it a crime to do those things in a particular circumstance he may just be blowing smoke up your coil.

Citation is the act of referring to (citing) a statute. Each statute has a code number that it is "cited" by. The ticket will have a place for this code number to be written in. You can look up the law (statute) cited by looking up the code number written on the ticket.

IF the written description of what the cop observed is not made a crime by the statute cited on the ticket there can be no valid ticket, tax or fee. If the cop puts the code number for (cites) a law that makes it illegal to leave abandoned cars on the roadside when he has observed you metal detecting in a park you would be foolish or an uninformed citizen to pay the "fine".

My point was many cops will cite some unrelated law when he doesn't have any legal reason to fine you for what you are doing. If you don't understand this legal distinction you could end up paying a fine you don't owe. You could even end up believing that a Judge acted as your lawyer and you "won" a ticket by arguing with him.

Not looking up the code cited on your ticket is not doing your duty as a citizen in a free Republic. If the people won't enforce their right to only be subject to public laws instead of enforcement of a cops idea of what's right who will? This is a government by the people. No one is sitting in a back room somewhere checking that all those tickets have a firm basis in law. It's up to us, the citizens, to ensure that.

Now you have been informed of the distinction. If you understand that distinction you may realize I've given you information that could help you detect more places without getting bogus "tickets". Whether that escapes you again I leave to you.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Clay, Would you agree that LEO's (and/or duly appointed city officials/employees/authorities) have some latitude to interpret grey-catch-all verbage ? So that if the offense (the law supposedly "broken") that was written on an md'rs ticket was "alter and deface" or "harvest and remove" or "annoyance" OR WHATEVER, that ........ they DO have the ability to do some on-the-spot morphing, if they believe yours or my's activity violates that.

YES IT'S TRUE THAT A JUDGE CAN OVERTURN that and say that you and I weren't harming anything. But that's not to say that the cop, in the field, can't use his judgement in issuing tickets.

I had to consult a lawyer once on this very topic: I had been booted from a park for md'ing. However, I knew full well there was no *specific* rule or law in this city, for their parks. So I thought about the things that might be written on a ticket, as mentioned above, if this same city worker saw me again. Or if a cop had tried to give me a ticket. And to me it seemed VERY UNFAIR and arbitrary, if it were something silly like cultural heritage, or alter deface, etc..... So I asked the lawyer:

"Doesn't it have to be SPECIFICALLY prohibited, in order to give someone an enforceable ticket? Because otherwise, what's to stop some cop from giving a ticket to a person wearing a blue shirt, simply because he considers it an 'annoyance'?"

The lawyer told me that cops and city persons do indeed have a wide degree of interpretive powers to issue a ticket. Now as to whether or not it would be up-held, is a different story.

 

[cudamark]

Every "ticket" I've ever seen, "cited" the code being violated. Of course, that doesn't mean you're guilty of violating that code, or that it's even a related activity. It's that, citation and ticket seem to be used interchangeably, with some insisting one be use over the other. I see no distinctive difference between the two. It's possible that there is a legal difference, but otherwise, to me, the difference is moot. Whether it's a citation or ticket, you're asked to pay the government it's prescribed pound of flesh, or, prove why you don't owe it in a court of law. Looks to me that the process is the same, whichever term you want to use. Similar argument with "fee", "fine", or "tax". It's a technical legal difference. Bureaucrats can raise fees without a vote of the people or their representatives, but a tax needs that vote. They'll just call it a fee so they don't have to jump through the legal hoops calling it a "tax". With a ticket or citation, there is a "tax", "fine", or "fee" attached to it. It's not just a warning. There are financial penalties involved. To call it a tax, there would have to be set amounts as prescribed by law, if it's a "fine" or "fee", it can be any amount up to a certain, fixed limit, based on the details of the situation, the severity of the crime, the intent of the law, and frankly, the whims of the judge. If you receive a "ticket" or "citation" by a LEO, citing a particular code or not, written description of your supposed violation, or not, you still have to go to court to get a decision and find out what your fine/fee/tax is going to be. Why argue the semantics? The judge is the one to decide, whichever term you choose to use in our conversations here.

 

[Clay Diggins]

well ...I did try

 

[Rogerv]

I know somebody that works for National Park Service and until they outlawed it and even afterward Gettysburg area detector hunters would destroy the fields at night they would come in the morning and find large holes all over the battlefield unfilled. This is sacred ground. If your caught anywhere near it with a detector now you will lose detector your car and go to jail. they now have long distance motion detectors and full security so don't even try.