Trespassing with permission?

[cudamark]

I've never been arrested for metal detecting or trespassing, I've actually never been hassled by anybody while metal detecting. Why? Because I don't go where I don't belong!

Sometimes we must take a position and make a stand, even if it's an inconvenience. I'm not a victim, and I won't be intimidated by any individual, including a police officer. When they start making the laws up as they go along, it's time to defend ones civil rights.

I was pretty wild when I was younger, I spent a lot of time in court and a few nights in jail, I have calmed down since then.

Taking a stand out in the field can be counterproductive. If detecting is legal but the groundskeeper says NO, what's the point in making an issue of it? You'll just get someone else against you when new policies are discussed and enacted. Even of you are completely in the right, and there is absolute permission granted to anyone who wants to hunt the place, what does taking the groundskeeper to task accomplish? Just the satisfaction of having his nose tweaked by his superiors? Congratulations, you've just made another enemy. Now, if they make a hard and fast rule against using a detector, that's when you want to fight them legally/politically.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Nugs Bunny]

You still go to jail if you are charged with something, then you bond out and appear in Court.--Nugs Bunny
A blanket statement as above is not true in my opinion. As it relates to metal detecting I offer the following---
If a person would light a fire outside of an open pit ,with signage warning against it in a park, they could be charged with a code violation but I don't think they would go to jail. -I would advise against doing it .
If a person would fly a frisbee outside of a frisbee golf area in a park,with signage against it,they could be charged with a code violation but I don't think they would go to jail. -I would advise against it.

Knowing that metal detecting has certain connotations I would highly advise against metal detecting in a park where there would be signage against it.

If there were wording in a code that a person could relate to metal detecting ,but absent any wording that mentions metal detecting, I would detect in a park that also would not have a sign restricting metal detecting.

Blanket statements ,such as I referenced above, are not good for the hobby or the promotion of the hobby, in my opinion.

So we went from trespassing to code violations? One CAN BE arrested for trespassing and that is what we are talking about here not a fire (arson is a misdemeanor too right?).

"If a person would light a fire outside of an open pit ,with signage warning against it in a park" What park is this? I highly doubt we are still talking about a city park, sounds more like a campground/park.

You sure did a good job dodging my questions, and you constantly present information out of context.

When you posted that grand theft auto and burglary were misdemeanor offenses you lost ALL credibility!

Meanwhile, more serious misdemeanors like burglary and grand theft might be punishable by some jail time.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

You still go to jail if you are charged with something,... --Nugs Bunny
My comments were in response to the above.

Once again you are quoting me out of context and selectively editing my statements.

You have to be convicted to have a criminal record. Being charged with a crime and being CONVICTED are two separate things.

You still go to jail if you are charged with something, then you bond out and appear in Court.

Still dodging my questions I see. How about answering this one at least? "Are you saying stealing a car or breaking into a home is a misdemeanor?" Because it appears you are!

Meanwhile, more serious misdemeanors like burglary and grand theft might be punishable by some jail time.

"When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others... It is the same when you are stupid." ~ Philippe Geluck.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Taking a stand out in the field can be counterproductive. If detecting is legal but the groundskeeper says NO, what's the point in making an issue of it? You'll just get someone else against you when new policies are discussed and enacted. Even of you are completely in the right, and there is absolute permission granted to anyone who wants to hunt the place, what does taking the groundskeeper to task accomplish? Just the satisfaction of having his nose tweaked by his superiors? Congratulations, you've just made another enemy. Now, if they make a hard and fast rule against using a detector, that's when you want to fight them legally/politically.

So now we are battling grounds keepers? I believe this was about a police officer overstepping their bounds not groundskeepers. But we can go there...

That's the problem with asking "officials" permission. You can get any number of answers based on their "feelings" or politics, or just a CYA answer to keep them out of any possible trouble. I agree with you, let THEM tell ME what I'm doing wrong if it's not otherwise prohibited in writing. I've actually had them change their mind (out in the field) after they told me I can't detect the property. One particular time, I had already made at least 50 recoveries when I was accosted by a "teacher". She proceeded to read me the riot act about damaging school property and trespassing, etc. First, I told her (and pointed out) that the gate was wide open and others were using the grounds too. I then asked her to show me any damage that I had caused. She said she couldn't because she caught me just in time before I could cause any damage. I then showed her the 50+ items I had already recovered (along with all kinds of trash and sharp, potentially dangerous metal and glass I had picked up). I then informed her that I had already made dozens of recoveries and promised her that if she could find just one location where I made a recovery, I'd apologize and leave. She looked around, and after a few moments, admitted that she couldn't. It took a bit of time and conversation, but, she eventually realized that I was not a problem but rather an asset. Of coarse, I've also run across the fanatics that won't be swayed by facts because of what they KNOW to be true. Whether you have permission or not means nothing to them. Just move on and return at a different time and day.

I don't ask any official for permission, but instead, look the rules up myself.

I agree with you for the most part in that the end result matters in the intent of the law. I can also see problems with that stance in other areas of the law. If you kidnap someone but then return them to where they were abducted, were they really kidnapped? Or closer to our experiences, if you trespass and then leave the property, have you really trespassed? I think the difference is perception. If you break the law and nobody cares, you've still broken the law, but, if nobody cares, there is no victim, and therefor no prosecution.

Try to find out the exact violation, where it's written, and it's intent and see if it is something taken out of context or if it applies to what you are doing. If the law is vague, give it another try at a different time when the original complainer isn't around. If it's still a problem with someone else, you may have to see about changing the law through political means.

Here is what happens when ONE guy stands up to overzealous LAW officials. In case you're unaware of the situation Brandon Rinehart refused to stop dredging, was cited and fought the fight.

"Monday’s court ruling could end a moratorium on suction dredge mining enacted in 2009 by Gov. Schwarzenegger and affirmed in 2012 by Gov. Brown."

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/gold-prospecting/446818-thank-you-brandon-rinehart.html
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/gold-prospecting/446812-appears-we-won.html
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/g...rs-destructive-suction-dredge-mining-lol.html

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Bugs and Kemper, end the insults now..,Kemper any more crude comments like the toliet and you will find you can't post at all.

Posted From My $50 Tablet....

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Bugs and Kemper, end the insults now..,Kemper any more crude comments like the toliet and you will find you can't post at all.

Posted From My $50 Tablet....




“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
― James Madison

The Constitution of the United States of America

Sorry TH, I apologize for the both or us.

I wasn't trying to insult anybody, just toying with his ego a little. I realized one cannot have a reasonable debate with Kemper awhile ago, so I have just been toying with him ever since.

 

[civil_war22]

Thanks yall. I was starting to get worked up then it quit so finally back to normal again. Dang. Gonna go back to bed again

 

[cudamark]

So now we are battling grounds keepers? I believe this was about a police officer overstepping their bounds not groundskeepers. But we can go there...


Sure, you can substitute police officers for groundskeepers. Arguing with either of them out in the field does you no good. Try to find out what their concerns are and if you can't convince them that you aren't doing any damage, ask them what written rule you're violating, thank them. and then go home and research the origin of the rule. Based on what you find, you can them plan a course of action. If nothing is specific about detecting, the best course might be to detect at a different time when the complainer isn't around. The police won't care unless they get a complaint.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... The police won't care unless they get a complaint....

cudamark, you are absolutely right with this statement: A lot of times, if an md'r is booted by a police man from a park, it's only because some lookie-lou called it in. And once the police arrives, they're duty bound to deal with it. Ie.: to "please the lookie-lou", make a decision, etc... When in fact that police man, had he just been driving by on his own, may not have cared or paid you a second glance.

I know this for a fact, because sometimes they'll even be up front and say "we got a call, blah blah". But just because they don't start out with that information, doesn't mean that wasn't the genesis of their reason for being there.

So to me, this reality (of a policeman wishing to justify his being called out), does NOT equate to: Therefore, ask ahead of time "can I?". To me, if means : STAY CLEAR & AVOID THOSE TYPE LOOKIE LOUS WHO MIGHT COMPLAIN. Out of sight is out of mind. What they don't see won't hurt them. Go at low traffic times. Presto, problem solved.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Also I will add, that this is the reason that I do not take "bootings from police" to necessarily mean: "Therefore, this park is off-limits". Because suppose for a moment that this premise is true: That often-time bootings are for isolated cases of some busy-body caller. Like a mom with a baby-stroller called you in because she thought you were weird. Or were interfering with her son's baseball game at the other end of the park, etc....

Then in that case, I do not construe it as meaning that I can not go back, when such phone-call-person is gone.

I even had this admitted to me by a cop in San Francisco once. After some casual chit-chat (politely asking why we couldn't continue, and how we were doing any harm), he confided to us that the only reason he was there, was that a lady looking out her window, from the apartment's across the street, had called it in. And as he said so, he "wink wink" motioned behind him (w/o turning around to specifically stare at the exact building, in case that lady might be still looking down at what was un-folding). The cop, even with a wink, said "just go to the other end of the park, which is out of view of that set of buildings.

So do you see how, if we'd just taken his initial scram as "law", ....... we could easily have construed this booting as meaning "these parks are off-limits". That's just an example of how it can be spelled out by the cop. But even in the absence of him spelling it out like that, I'm convinced that other such bootings, even if they don't go into detail about how they're "pleasing one griper, for *just that day*, that ..... it can still amount to the same thing.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

cudamark, you are absolutely right with this statement: A lot of times, if an md'r is booted by a police man from a park, it's only because some lookie-lou called it in. And once the police arrives, they're duty bound to deal with it. Ie.: to "please the lookie-lou", make a decision, etc... When in fact that police man, had he just been driving by on his own, may not have cared or paid you a second glance.

I know this for a fact, because sometimes they'll even be up front and say "we got a call, blah blah". But just because they don't start out with that information, doesn't mean that wasn't the genesis of their reason for being there.

So to me, this reality (of a policeman wishing to justify his being called out), does NOT equate to: Therefore, ask ahead of time "can I?". To me, if means : STAY CLEAR & AVOID THOSE TYPE LOOKIE LOUS WHO MIGHT COMPLAIN. Out of sight is out of mind. What they don't see won't hurt them. Go at low traffic times. Presto, problem solved.

Lookie Lous call the police all the time and the officers are not "duty bound" to please ANYBODY, they are "duty bound" to uphold the law.

Two friends and an ex girlfriend of mine are cops, and they all hate the Lookie Lous, because they distract them from what they really want to be doing, getting felony arrests. That's where the money is at. Every block in town has a self appointed "Mayor"

Lookie Lous many times do not get their way, many times they are told no law is being broken and to mind their business.

Most times the officers could care less and don't know the regulations for metal detecting.

If one offers a polite, reasonable, rational objection, and can give the officer the legal codes, chances are he will tell the Lookie Lou to pound sand.

I'm not the kind of person to live under the Crazy Cat Lady's rules or those of Buford T Justice's. There is a reason we have a written code of law... and a Constitution.

I'm not debating you but I do disagree with your advice.

The power of the Lookie Lou is directly proportional to the politics of the region. In other words I think this another one of those California things.

In Ohio if one calls the police and nobody is really breaking the law, the cops give the caller a hard time. They don't force us to follow the Crazy Cat Lady's commands.

They will also make up the law if they do not know it, citing specific code gives them something to look up. If they look it up themselves, then nobody is "telling" them the law, and they will interpret it as they see fit.

I'm not putting down CA or saying OH is better, but there are far less Prius's with COEXIST bumper stickers here. Our population is split between rural hick farming communities, villages and incorporations and only a handful of large cities.

Try doing this in Cali lol!

 

[Nugs Bunny]

So now we are battling grounds keepers? I believe this was about a police officer overstepping their bounds not groundskeepers. But we can go there...


Sure, you can substitute police officers for groundskeepers. Arguing with either of them out in the field does you no good.

Ok well in that case a teacher is a s good as a grounds keeper!

I've actually had them change their mind (out in the field) after they told me I can't detect the property. One particular time, I had already made at least 50 recoveries when I was accosted by a "teacher". She proceeded to read me the riot act about damaging school property and trespassing, etc. First, I told her (and pointed out) that the gate was wide open and others were using the grounds too. I then asked her to show me any damage that I had caused. She said she couldn't because she caught me just in time before I could cause any damage. I then showed her the 50+ items I had already recovered (along with all kinds of trash and sharp, potentially dangerous metal and glass I had picked up). I then informed her that I had already made dozens of recoveries and promised her that if she could find just one location where I made a recovery, I'd apologize and leave. She looked around, and after a few moments, admitted that she couldn't. It took a bit of time and conversation, but, she eventually realized that I was not a problem but rather an asset. Of coarse, I've also run across the fanatics that won't be swayed by facts because of what they KNOW to be true. Whether you have permission or not means nothing to them. Just move on and return at a different time and day.

 

[cudamark]

Lookie Lous call the police all the time and the officers are not "duty bound" to please ANYBODY, they are "duty bound" to uphold the law.

That's fine, when there is a cut and dried law. In most places you hunt, there isn't anything definitive about detecting so the police have to "interpret" the law as it pertains to the current situation. Like any other person in the middle of an argument, he wants to take the easy way out and if he can satisfy both parties, that's what he'll do. When he can't, who do you think he's going to side with? The complainer or the "problem"? Better not to get in that situation to begin with, but when you do, just move on and try somewhere else, as you're going to lose that battle on that given day. Maybe the next cop that responds will side with you.........but don't count on it.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Lookie Lous call the police all the time and the officers are not "duty bound" to please ANYBODY, they are "duty bound" to uphold the law.

That's fine, when there is a cut and dried law. In most places you hunt, there isn't anything definitive about detecting so the police have to "interpret" the law as it pertains to the current situation. Like any other person in the middle of an argument, he wants to take the easy way out and if he can satisfy both parties, that's what he'll do. When he can't, who do you think he's going to side with? The complainer or the "problem"? Better not to get in that situation to begin with, but when you do, just move on and try somewhere else, as you're going to lose that battle on that given day. Maybe the next cop that responds will side with you.........but don't count on it.

I have never had the police called on me for metal detecting, I don't hunt places that are questionable.

I know a lot of cops in my town, and they all hate the nosey people that constantly call the police.

If one offers a polite, reasonable, rational objection, and can give the officer the legal codes, they will typically tell the complainer there is nothing they can do.

I used to openly carry a firearm, and sometimes still do, trust me I know all about dealing with the police, the law and nosey people.

Show the cop the property codes and he will tell the person who called what you are doing is legal.

There is no need for a specific code for metal detecting because this is a property matter. If there are no regulations prohibiting digging or detecting and it's public property the police should not have a problem (although some do have a problem with everything).

What the cop is going to do is figure out whether or not you are breaking the law. If he can't he will either warn you or write a ticket and let you take your chances in Court. If he determines what you are doing is legal he will most likely ask you move down the street so the nib nose doesn't call back.

If the lookie lou calls back they will get a lecture from the police and probably be told to leave one alone.

Every police force has a few bad apples, that is why I avoid detecting certain areas... like curb strips.

Personally I think the lack of respect and common courtesy is what gives us ALL a bad name!

Who cares who owns it? Somebody MAINTAINS IT, the old lady across the street from me works on the one in front of her house all Summer.

Some people wouldn't care if you asked permission, some are going to say no... but asking is what is the RIGHT thing to do, it's what is ETHICAL to do.

Would I care if somebody was detecting my curb strip? Darn right I would... those are MY goodies... go detect your OWN curb strip!

Pushing the legal boundaries is one thing... but disregarding respect and common courtesy is what tarnishes this hobby.

Maybe you don't need permission, maybe you will miss out on a few silver coins, but isn't it worth it in an effort to change our image.

Legally I can hunt this 1800's Church on this old lady's property, it's still stands and the front entrance id well within the 10 foot easement for the road. The Church itself blocks her view from the road.

The history of the area and location of this place leads me to believe there could be some incredible finds there. I asked permission and was told no, so I have decided to offer money and yard work this year.

I would even let her keep everything I found, a picture is all I really need, it's the thrill of the hunt and the discovery of the history of where I live. Not scoring some clad from a curb strip.

I do a lot more than research than any historian or archie because it fascinates me, that old rusty hinge or that worn down token puts that history in my hands... and to me that's what it's about.

I want to end my post by saying CA and OH are worlds apart, what works and is accepted there sometimes is the exact opposite here. Not that we are better or worse just different.

So were are bound to disagree and still be right in respect to our locations. I just wish people wouldn't push the boundaries to a point it starts making us look like scavengers and vultures.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Lookie Lous call the police all the time and the officers are not "duty bound" to please ANYBODY, they are "duty bound" to uphold the law.....

Nugs, yes, in theory, this is correct. But in actual human nature reality, the "squeeky wheel gets the grease". Oh sure, NO ONE is going to say that "cops are arbitrary". Or that cops decisions are 100% based on law technicalities, etc.... Because to say that, means that things are "fluid", rather than "concrete". So in theory what you're saying is true, but in actual practice, ....... no.

Mark & Kemper summed it up great when they say these:

What a person should keep in mind is that ,(whether right or wrong) the official may tell someone to scram if someone complains and not bother with the person if nobody complains..... .

....... In most places you hunt, there isn't anything definitive about detecting so the police have to "interpret" the law as it pertains to the current situation. Like any other person in the middle of an argument, he wants to take the easy way out and if he can satisfy both parties, that's what he'll do. When he can't, who do you think he's going to side with? The complainer or the "problem"? Better not to get in that situation to begin with .....

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Nugs, yes, in theory, this is correct. But in actual human nature reality, the "squeeky wheel gets the grease". Oh sure, NO ONE is going to say that "cops are arbitrary". Or that cops decisions are 100% based on law technicalities, etc.... Because to say that, means that things are "fluid", rather than "concrete". So in theory what you're saying is true, but in actual practice, ....... no.

Mark & Kemper summed it up great when they say these:

Maybe in Cali... but not in Ohio!

The two States are worlds apart... in Ohio they are more likely to tell the busybody to mind their business, you are breaking no laws and get over it.

So in Cali it may be safe to say the lookie lou gets their way... but in Ohio generally the cop is mad he was called out for nothing... the lookie lou feels the wrath and gets a little lecture. What works and is accepted there sometimes is the exact opposite here. Not that we are better or worse just different.

As previously stated... The power of the lookie lou is directly proportional to the politics of the region.

I can walk into the local bank here with a loaded .45 under my shirt, but that would be totally unacceptable in Cali. I have a stack of 30rnd mags for my AR-15... also unacceptable in Cali.

Do this in Cali and you would have every agency and leaf eater out there making sure you are punished by the fullest extent of the law. Here they would offer ya abeer and throw another burger on the fire. BTW this road runs through the creek so nobody is breaking any laws here...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

nugs, ok, let's leave "lookie-lous" out of this, for the moment, for sake of discussion.

It won't be so much a matter of "pleasing the lookie-lou", as it is .......... THEIR THINKING ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. So forget, for the moment, of who's pleasing who. What I mean is, like kemper says is that even in Ohio, if that very same cop were to happen to be passing by the park, and sees you, perhaps it "doesn't register" as something he thinks about, or wonders "is this legal" or "what are the implications/end-results", etc..... HOWEVER, if that exact same cop is called out on a complaint, then .......... he's now actively thinking "what does this involve?" , "What laws cover this?" and so forth.

Hence I think you're getting caught up in the "lookie-lou" and "pleasing" part. All we're trying to tell you, is: What factor PUTS IT ON THEIR RADAR, to begin with. Because in actual life reality, often-time it's a matter of whether or not a person is tasked with thinking about something. Not what technicalities actually say about said-subject-at-hand.

 

[civil_war22]

As you have both stated there is bad apples everywhere. I was a cop for over 6 years and understand where yall are coming from and where they are coming from. You (cop) try to do your best in pleasing everyone and in the end the Lookie-Lou is the one tht usually comes out on top because they are the one that called in and they are the one who will report back to your patrol sgt or shift supervisor and say you did or didn't do your job to their satisfaction. On the other hand I have had my regulars who complained about everything for whatever reason and have stopped and talked to detectorist and I have watched them do their thing and have helped them critique their methods in certain ways as to please everyone. On two occasions I have introduced the detectorist to the Lookie-Lou and told them what was going on and that he was only there looking for old coins and picking up trash and helped the detectorist gain trust with the homeowner. Did I have to do this? NO!! But I helped him get permission and helped him gain trust with the homeowner. Sometimes a little kindness goes a long way. Building trust with someone and not falling back on your word will go a long way.

 

[civil_war22]

Don't get me wrong Kemper if I felt like someone wasn't doing what they were supposed to or giving the metal detecting community a bad light yes I would tell them to take a hike but I am always trying to better the situation and would help someone out who was a newbie or even a skilled veteran. No one knows all the tricks of the trade but having an upper hand in this deck of cards helps. Bringing the detectorist over to the Lookie-Lou and using de-escalating tactics sure helps and it garners trust between the two. You have to be able to get a feel for the person before this happens. If u can tell by observation that this guy detecting is a complete you know what and lies about everything he is telling you then there is no reason to continue on with the conversation just tell him to be on his merry way and if I get a call back out here it won't be so pleasant

 

[civil_war22]

Most of the time the police do what they do in order o keep the caller off their back or keep their CO from writing them up or verbal reprimand. I got a verbal for not doing as the caller asked in a case of kids skate boarding in a public park. Mind you it was a public park with a half pipe for kids to play on and old man was getting mad cause kids would roll past his house in masse to go there less than a hundred yards away. Well I didn't get on to them because how else they gonna get there besides walk. All I told them was to keep it low and slow going by old mans house so he wouldn't call on them again