We Let The Cop Off Easy, Wuss Award For Detectors.

[HarveyH48]

Harvey, please answer this question for us: Let's say there's a park in your city where you can metal detect without issue or problem. In fact, let's even go a step further, and say you have express written permission to detect there. Ok ? Now with that in mind, let's say you read in the newspaper that there's going to be a convention of "purist archies" convening there, for the country-wide annual BBQ picnic.

Now, you tell me: If a bunch of purist archies are going to be convening in that park, is that a good time to go metal detecting there, .... or not ? Remember, it's "legal", so .... I suppose in your mind, you will be able to waltz through their people, and .... they'll not gripe ? Or if they gripe, you'll just flash that permission and they'll slink away embarassed for having griped ?

Or would even you agree that .... perhaps that's not the BEST time to go detecting at that park ?

If you can agree that that's not the best time to hunt that park, then congradulations, you're seeing the light.

A ridiculous leading question to answer. I wouldn't go, simply because there would be an unusually large crowd, wouldn't what their profession or affiliation. So, yeah, you get a 'No', but not for the reason you wanted to imply or 'morph'. I wouldn't hunt that day, even if it was a local metal detecting club. Too many people, probably want to do a club seeded hunt, I'm not a member, why interfere. Plenty of places to hunt, on day, one week, isn't going to hurt my hunting. It's not now or never for me, I still have plenty of life left. There just isn't that urgent, that I need to walk all over the people in my community, just to get what I want. I live here, and want to be able to go outside during the daylight hours...

 

[CoiltoSoil]

and



Well, yes and no you guys. Yes I agree that if there's nothing that specifically said "no metal detecting", then logically, it's not prohibited. However, asking them to cite something you were violating, can back-fire. Because they can simply morph/interpret something ELSE they think applies. And seriously now, who do you thinks going to win that battle of semantics ?

Interestingly, the link that porsche914 gives, shows that it's only "deface" and "damage" type verbage the cop must have been relying upon. So it could be argued that if the OP leaves no trace of his presence, then logically you have not defacED or damagED anything, NOW HAVE YOU ??

But that will just devolve into a p*ss*ng match of semantics, I know. And let's face it: duly-appointed public officials are given latitude to do their jobs. And rules/laws are PURPOSEFULLY written vaguely, so-as-to apply to a myriad of circumstances that may arise in the field. Because, of course, it's impossible to list every last thing on earth that is "illegal". That's why you have vague statutes, for example, that forbid "annoyances", "loitering", and so forth.

But those type catch-all terms are only used in cases of complaints. You and I are under no obligation to go in to every city hall we come to asking "does such & such constitute at annoyance?". Or .... "If I stand on the street corner for over 5 minutes does that constitute loitering?", and so forth. On the contrary, like noise ordinances, etc.... it takes a complaint to get such things rolling. If no complaint, well .... gee .... then no complaint.

I agree, the rule was so loosely written that it can be argued in favor and against metal detecting, but we both know how that would end. You're not going to win an argument like that with a cop or a park official. Let's just assume you argue a good case and they allow you to dig the park, I would be certain, that shortly after, a new rule regarding detecting would hit the books.

 

[jarrow]

Yes but they should have been investigating the written law before harrassing a citizen, and that does not include taking the persons personal... oh did I just say PERSONAL? Information nor interupting their day off from work, it's not like those two men where being paid to entertain nor to educate the officer nor the park worker. It is a huge mistake to think that everyone HAS to know every ones business, not when they aren't harming anyone nor breaking all the tons of laws growing out ofpoliticians behinds so they can make more money. Sure, cops jobs are high stress, so you would think that they know how important it is to have stress free time out, which includes not being unnessarily harassed

I agree 100%

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... I wouldn't go, simply because there would be an unusually large crowd, ...

Correct. And guess what the reason for this is ? Because someone(s) in that "unusually large crowd" might complain or not like it ? EXACTLY ! You're getting it Harvey! LET'S AVOID COMPLAINTS. Glad you're getting on board an not wishing to ruffle the feathers of people who might take issue with what you or I are doing.

See Harvey, you agree with me, but just don't realize it.

 

[JETSEMT-P]

My advice would be to call the Police Dept. And respectfully ask for an appointment with the Chief or other Commanding Officer. You may even ask that the Officer be present. Don't go in with any expectations either way, but simply sit an discuss the encounter and ask for a copy of the City Ordinances. Tell them that you would like to familiarize yourself with them because you're a law-abiding citizen and that you would not purposefully disobey a law. Also explain that you understand that ignorance of the law is no excuse and you don't want any future unpleasant encounters.

If they are unable to provide you with a specific ordinance that prohibits metal detecting, then respectfully tell them that by the sheer nature of law, that the lack of a law prohibiting a specific activity makes it legal in a court of law. Tell them that you understand that there may have been a complainant. However, unless you are engaging in an activity that is actually against the law, the complainant should be told that you are within your rights.

If the meeting goes well, make sure you get a business card of the Chief or whoever you meet with to carry with you in your wallet while detecting. That way if you have another Officer encounter, simply pull the card out and explain that you have previously met with that person and that they gave you their ok. Even offer to call them and I guarantee the officer will decline you calling and tell you it's no problem. The last thing they want to do is go against the word of their Commanding Officer and have to deal with the consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HarveyH48]

Correct. And guess what the reason for this is ? Because someone(s) in that "unusually large crowd" might complain or not like it ? EXACTLY ! You're getting it Harvey! LET'S AVOID COMPLAINTS. Glad you're getting on board an not wishing to ruffle the feathers of people who might take issue with what you or I are doing.

See Harvey, you agree with me, but just don't realize it.

NO
Tom, it's because there is a crowd of people. I don't want people getting in my way, nor do I want to interfere with their activities. I would also pack it in, if the park started filling up, for the same reason. I want to focus on my hunting, not avoiding the busy areas of the park. Running, screaming kids are the worst. Anything under 3 feet, is easy to step on, and their quick too. I don't worry about complaints, because I don't squeeze into places I'm not welcome in the first place. Is your head really that messed up? Now, if you can't leave the lies and deceit out of replies directed at me, I'm going start reporting your post as such. You're a disease Tom, and I don't intend to get sick over your silly little word games. Of course, the forum owners and administrators seem to support you message and methods, maybe I'm the one who ends up cleaning out my locker...

 

[H Desert Digger]

Whether or not one is in the right, especially in todays world, it is (in my opinion) not worth challenging a LEO. If they tell you to leave, you should leave. I would.

In less than 2 hours I'm on another patch of ground and maybe finding a find of a lifetime...???

Just my humble opinion...

HDD

 

[Tom_in_CA]

My advice would be to call the Police Dept......
If they are unable to provide you with a specific ordinance that prohibits metal detecting, then respectfully tell them that by the sheer nature of law, that the lack of a law prohibiting a specific activity makes it legal in a court of law. Tell them that you understand that there may have been a complainant. However, unless you are engaging in an activity that is actually against the law, the complainant should be told that you are within your rights.....

Jetsemt-p, I can see the logic of asking a police person, rather than at city hall (parks people, gardeners, etc...). Because, yes, the cops have much bigger fish to fry, and are less likely to care about such trivial things.

However, with such legal premises as your approach seems to imply. That you're "putting them on alert" about this and that, and carefully worded legal phrases, and even-to-the-point of telling them that there's been a complaint ... hmm, seems to me that a lot of police people might clam up and start to envision something legal, hassles, etc.... Ie.: if they got the feeling that you were going to "drop their name" as the "authority that said you could do such & such", well .... the following un-desirable results could come out of such a meeting:

That they, just like the park worker or city person could find something ELSE they think applies. Ie.: the harvest and remove verbage. Or the alter and deface verbage, etc... I've even heard of person's trying the police route being told "you need to ask that at city hall , not us, since we're not the park's dept"

But again, I agree, if such an encounter is NEEDED, the police are more inclined to care less. But the more I can involve ANY body's princely say-so or scrutiny, the better. JMHO.

 

[pescadore]

Whether or not one is in the right, especially in todays world, it is (in my opinion) not worth challenging a LEO. If they tell you to leave, you should leave. I would.

In less than 2 hours I'm on another patch of ground and maybe finding a find of a lifetime...???

Just my humble opinion...

HDD

You would be making a smart decision IMHO !!! What people are not seeming to understand is that it doesn't matter at the scene what you as a citizen think is right or wrong because the only person that is in control of that scene is the LEO!! His interpretation of the law at the scene is the only one that matters. Just because you do not agree with his interpretation doesnt keep you from receiving a citation or worse. Your time for arguing the point is when you get your day in court to fight the ticket, if you receive one, not at the scene. I personally do not wish it to go that far because I have been in too many municipal courts and know that my chances of winning that fight are not very good. I can avoid the whole situation by just saying, sorry officer, I was not aware of the Ordinance and I will be glad to leave. If I want to get an official ruling on the Ordinance, I can do that later with a simple letter. If I am not satisified with the answer or think the Ordinance is wrong then I can request to address the Parks and Rec board or City Council to try and get it changed.

 

[Martin_V3i]

You would be making a smart decision IMHO !!! What people are not seeming to understand is that it doesn't matter at the scene what you as a citizen think is right or wrong because the only person that is in control of that scene is the LEO!! His interpretation of the law at the scene is the only one that matters. Just because you do not agree with his interpretation doesnt keep you from receiving a citation or worse. Your time for arguing the point is when you get your day in court to fight the ticket, if you receive one, not at the scene. I personally do not wish it to go that far because I have been in too many municipal courts and know that my chances of winning that fight are not very good. I can avoid the whole situation by just saying, sorry officer, I was not aware of the Ordinance and I will be glad to leave. If I want to get an official ruling on the Ordinance, I can do that later with a simple letter. If I am not satisified with the answer or think the Ordinance is wrong then I can request to address the Parks and Rec board or City Council to try and get it changed.

Let's say I had this to do over again and commanded the presence of the officer in person again before accepting the flat-out 60 second "no digging" reason he gave on the cell phone, AND LET'S SAY I HAD PRINTED OUT THE STATUTES from Plano's Parks and Recreation section which NEVER mentions the dig-word a single time? Btw, I am thinking about doing just that vere thing for each of the local towns and putting each in an organized folder.

Just why should a bozo on the sidelines, even though he happens to be a city employee doing the complaint, override my exhibition of the statutes which DO NOT call digging a crime? If the on site cop has the say so like a judge, and I lose this example, then what's the purpose of a democratic society?

In my opinion there was only one side listened to here in this case, and a speedy judgement made by a cop who self admitted "he just didn't know." At the very least, it was a lop-sided and fast decision on the cop.

I fully understand that it don't pay to fight city hall but if we had done that during the occupation of the british in the 1700s, we'd had a queen instead of a president all these decade.

 

[pescadore]

Let's say I had this to do over again and commanded the presence of the officer in person again before accepting the flat-out 60 second "no digging" reason he gave on the cell phone, AND LET'S SAY I HAD PRINTED OUT THE STATUTES from Plano's Parks and Recreation section which NEVER mentions the dig-word a single time? Btw, I am thinking about doing just that vere thing for each of the local towns and putting each in an organized folder.

Just why should a bozo on the sidelines, even though he happens to be a city employee doing the complaint, override my exhibition of the statutes which DO NOT call digging a crime? If the on site cop has the say so like a judge, and I lose this example, then what's the purpose of a democratic society?

In my opinion there was only one side listened to here in this case, and a speedy judgement made by a cop who self admitted "he just didn't know." At the very least, it was a lop-sided and fast decision on the cop.

I fully understand that it don't pay to fight city hall but if we had done that during the occupation of the british in the 1700s, we'd had a queen instead of a president all these decade.

I think I gave you the proper procedures for fighting city hall !! I have no problem with that but fighting the battle at the scene is not the place or time, I don't care what you are armed with short of having a letter of permission signed by a city official in charge. I can almost guarantee that the officer was not acting on his own accord and if you think you can talk him into insubordination to his supervisor, well good luck with that. The only reason that you think that the decision of the police officer was lop-sided is because his, or his supervisor's, interpretation of the Ordinance does not agree with yours. Again, it is not his job to stand out there and argue why he is right and you are wrong, that is why we have court. If you had of started your argument with him by pulling out your documents, I am sure he would point that fact out to you very quickly.

 

[HarveyH48]

Let's say I had this to do over again and commanded the presence of the officer in person again before accepting the flat-out 60 second "no digging" reason he gave on the cell phone, AND LET'S SAY I HAD PRINTED OUT THE STATUTES from Plano's Parks and Recreation section which NEVER mentions the dig-word a single time? Btw, I am thinking about doing just that vere thing for each of the local towns and putting each in an organized folder.

Just why should a bozo on the sidelines, even though he happens to be a city employee doing the complaint, override my exhibition of the statutes which DO NOT call digging a crime? If the on site cop has the say so like a judge, and I lose this example, then what's the purpose of a democratic society?

In my opinion there was only one side listened to here in this case, and a speedy judgement made by a cop who self admitted "he just didn't know." At the very least, it was a lop-sided and fast decision on the cop.

I fully understand that it don't pay to fight city hall but if we had done that during the occupation of the british in the 1700s, we'd had a queen instead of a president all these decade.

The police aren't judges, but they do send out the invitations to attend court, in which your guilt or innocence is judged, by how the court interprets the laws you are accused of breaking. It's an invitation you can't refuse, have no say in day or time. The officers left it in your hands, if you wish to pursue it, in your own way, several options.

Might not have been a fun day, but could have been worse, run off, and a ticket, which would ruin another day, since you have to sit in the courtroom, until your turn. The cases before yours can go quickly, or take as long as they need, to be heard and argued. Could be there all day, could be invited back another day... You would of course fight it, you did nothing wrong, and feel strongly.

 

[Trapper]

giving in

In my opinion its not giving in if its a cop. Hes the law and what he says goes. If he says go then just go. If you don't then THATS reason enough to arrest you. Remember, cops will respond to what you do or say. So pass the "attitude test" that all cops use and don't make a scene.

 

[CoiltoSoil]

Yeah, I've been run out of parks like that before due to people not minding their own business and decided to contact cops and park officials. Most parks have no disturbing grass, no digging, and other laws which can be interpreted as "no detecting" if someone who disliked us enough wanted to. In the situation you described there was really no way to win, the only option is to contact whoever is in charge of the park and have them clarify. I think the park employee and park supervisor is more at fault here than the cop.

 

[Kemper]

Lighten up

You're a disease Tom, and I don't intend to get sick over your silly little word games. Of course, the forum owners and administrators seem to support you message and methods, maybe I'm the one who ends up cleaning out my locker...-Harvey

Lighten up Harvey. Attack the message not the messenger. Nothing wrong with a little break though. I don't think I posted anything all day. I think Stewart is taking a break too. Don't stay gone too long you might miss out.

Me and my little puppy Misse here have lost a few battles. That pull tab contest is still got Misse feeling a little down (wasn't even close). Just gotta enjoy what's left after the battles.

On that note let me direct you to a thread by Ole Sarge titled. "Marsh Search Yields Flywheel" You never know what you might find out there or in here.

 

[Loxlie]

Let's say I had this to do over again and commanded the presence of the officer in person again before accepting the flat-out 60 second "no digging" reason he gave on the cell phone, AND LET'S SAY I HAD PRINTED OUT THE STATUTES from Plano's Parks and Recreation section which NEVER mentions the dig-word a single time? Btw, I am thinking about doing just that vere thing for each of the local towns and putting each in an organized folder.

Just why should a bozo on the sidelines, even though he happens to be a city employee doing the complaint, override my exhibition of the statutes which DO NOT call digging a crime? If the on site cop has the say so like a judge, and I lose this example, then what's the purpose of a democratic society?

In my opinion there was only one side listened to here in this case, and a speedy judgement made by a cop who self admitted "he just didn't know." At the very least, it was a lop-sided and fast decision on the cop.

I fully understand that it don't pay to fight city hall but if we had done that during the occupation of the british in the 1700s, we'd had a queen instead of a president all these decade.

 

[JETSEMT-P]

Jetsemt-p, I can see the logic of asking a police person, rather than at city hall (parks people, gardeners, etc...). Because, yes, the cops have much bigger fish to fry, and are less likely to care about such trivial things.



However, with such legal premises as your approach seems to imply. That you're "putting them on alert" about this and that, and carefully worded legal phrases, and even-to-the-point of telling them that there's been a complaint ... hmm, seems to me that a lot of police people might clam up and start to envision something legal, hassles, etc.... Ie.: if they got the feeling that you were going to "drop their name" as the "authority that said you could do such & such", well .... the following un-desirable results could come out of such a meeting:



That they, just like the park worker or city person could find something ELSE they think applies. Ie.: the harvest and remove verbage. Or the alter and deface verbage, etc... I've even heard of person's trying the police route being told "you need to ask that at city hall , not us, since we're not the park's dept"



But again, I agree, if such an encounter is NEEDED, the police are more inclined to care less. But the more I can involve ANY body's princely say-so or scrutiny, the better. JMHO.

That's just my 2 cents as a LEO myself. But I also realize that I use more sensible judgement than a lot of other LEOs out there. And I also guess none of us on this forum can really speak on the MD'ing subject and be completely unbiased. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kemper]

I understand your frustration Martin but don't let it interfere with your desire to detect that park. You screwed up by showing up there with your buddy before you had the situation scoped out. There is nothing in what I see of your OP that shows that it is illegal to detect that park if nobody complains.

Do you want to detect that park or are you more interested in making a statement. I would recommend you focus on detecting the park. If you want to detect that park with your buddy that is going to be a little more difficult. If you are interested in making a statement or some of the other things I've seen suggested to you I think it would be better to do that after you get those silver coins out of that park. You probably would lose interest in that.

Go low key. Do not take any equipment you can do without in regards to finding items. Go at a time to draw the least amount of attention to yourself and your buddy if that is what you decide to do. Stay legal as far as park hours are concerned. It sounds like park patrons might not like seeing you and the same could possibly be said for the Officers. Do not only hunt according to the Code of Ethics but be willing to go beyond but not outside of them.

If you use the buddy system a lookout might be in order to show respect for the authority that might rather not be involved as well as any patrons that might not like seeing people detecting,throwing a frisbee or having a barbeque with smoke blowing in their area just to name a few things that might get someone irritated enough to call authority.

If you can find anything else out about the authority that may be questioning you that could also be helpful. If you are not familiar with the authority or the area that could be a little more difficult. To use an example-if they were local and you knew that they wore a stupid hat in their off hours you might want to wear a similar stupid hat. If you know what kind of personal vehicle they drive and you can easily come up with a similar model you might want to drive that. It's all about fitting in.

I know these suggestions only lightly touch on the subject of fitting in but keep in mind that there are probably people out there that think you should not detect a city park and they will also be using legal tactics for their side of the issue. There will probably be no need to get as ridiculous as them but as close as you can get might be better.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Let's say I had this to do over again and commanded the presence of the officer in person again before accepting the flat-out 60 second "no digging" reason he gave on the cell phone, AND LET'S SAY I HAD PRINTED OUT THE STATUTES from Plano's Parks and Recreation section which NEVER mentions the dig-word a single time? Btw, I am thinking about doing just that vere thing for each of the local towns and putting each in an organized folder......

You could certainly try that. But if someone wanted to still boot you, they could just say the other words, like "alter" and "deface" apply/mean the same thing. And you could try to successfully counter argue that those don't apply since they refer to the end result of holes. Which, of course, since you're leaving no trace, wouldn't apply. It would digress into a battle of semantics.

So while that's certainly a good tactic to use if someone's come out to accost you, yet the best method, is to try to avoid any and all such encounters, from the git-go. And that is to go when no such lookie-lous are inclined to be there, to gripe, to begin with

 

[JunkInTheTrunk]

I personally don't get it sometimes

Now before "I" get attacked with the last statement I just made above, here me out on this. Just recenly my catalytic converter on my truck was stolen. Not every insurance company will cover such theft, from what I found out... fortunately mine did. It would have costed me $1100.00+ to get it replaced and I won't go into the "do's/don'ts on SOME aftermarket car parts, which "could have been an option" to some people, but for this particular part, not an option "I" would personally do... it only costed me my detuctable. That very same day (i.e. the very instant I found out and/or realized what had happened) I called my insurance company, had a tow truck come out, took it to a shop for it to be scheduled to get fixed. I was contemplating on calling "law enforcement" because a few years ago I had items stolen out of my car and nothing was done about it back then But then I figured, "hey, a crime was committed and I should still call it in because that way it doesn't possibly happen to me again or to my neighbors." Also, that very same day I made some notes on scrap pieces of paper and stuck them on the windshields of my neighbors cars/trucks to let them be, at least, aware of what happened to me so it possibly doesn't happen to them. So I eventually call "911" and was eventually directed to the police dept and they denied taking a report because I had already had it in the process of being fixed Pretty much, in an obviously somewhat angry voice, I then asked, "regardless of whether I get it fixed or not, does it, at the very least, NOT MAKE SENSE to report such activitiy occurring in the neighborhood so you guys at least know what kind of activity is going on..." A moment of silence on the other end of the line. "Go ahead sir...". Unbelievable

But, your damned straight that the law is there, right NOW, on someone "scratch'n dirt"!!! Now you can't, honnnnestly tell me that that makes annnnny sense whatsoever And believe me when I say this, it's NOT the LEO's themselves I'm complaining about... it's the ridiculous laws that are out there.

You know, I'll just leave it at that for you guys. I'm just simply saying... Man, I don't even know where to begin other than what I said earlier, there are far more real crimes out there and what a waste of resources. This country truly is going down hill.

I'm fortunate enough to have a beach to goto and feel for my fellow MD'rs that don't have that luxury. I don't like to hunt parks too much anymore because of this very same reason.

HH \_ people