Oh, this isn't my yard??? and that's not my name??--OOPS!

[Sonny b]

Gosh I hate seeing that kind of stuff making news anywhere!!! It seems like a minor offense. Its not like he jacked their car. However, if I came home and saw someone metal detecting in my yard I would be pissed too, especially if he was screaming "BOOM BABY" as I was pulling in the drive

[slater]

Originally Posted by hawgdawg

He was using an old eagle spectrum like mine....wonder if hes going to sell the detector to help pay court cost...

Judging from other articles I have read on this site, I believe the photo is just a stock photo.

[slater]

Originally Posted by Sonny b

Gosh I hate seeing that kind of stuff making news anywhere!!! It seems like a minor offense. Its not like he jacked their car. However, if I came home and saw someone metal detecting in my yard I would be pissed too, especially if he was screaming "BOOM BABY" as I was pulling in the drive

The website "Patch" publishes items of local interest to different areas around the country. I have looked for this story elsewhere and haven't found it. I think they saw it on the police blotter, and thought it would be a unique story to publish. Still, it is annoying that it made the news.

[emfederin]

I think "theft" is not only hyperbolic, it's also going to be damned near impossible to prove - if the idiot keeps his mouth shut.

At it's simplest, in order to prove an item was stolen you first have to establish that a particular person owned it prior to being stolen.

Yes, most property laws say that a property owner owns everything IN the ground along with anything ON it; that much is indisputable.

But the prosecution will be tasked with proving that the coins in the guy's pockets came from the owned property in question. If the guy claims he dug them at a site other than the owned site (perhaps even a "curb strip" at the property), then the prosecution has no rebuttal unless there is indisputable evidence to the contrary such as an eyewitness who saw him dig a particular coin from a particular spot on the owned property.

I'm not defending the guy's "tresspass", and if "stupidity" were a crime he should have been charged with that in the first degree.

Fact is, if the guy had been forthcoming instead of lying about everything he probably would have just been told to leave or issued a summons for trespass. He got his own ass arrested, and rightfully so.

I'm no lawyer, but I have zero doubt that even a PD will get the theft charges thrown out with no trouble. Trespass is a done deal and the state won't want to waste time trying to prove theft for a few dirty coins - assuming said coins are the typical common pieces we dig up.

[alumaman]

Originally Posted by Dubay420

I hate reading stories like this.. because i feel it will cause more and more people to say no to people my age who do ask permission.

You couldn't be more right. It takes a stupid person to think he will never have to pay for his misdeeds. Now we all get to pay also.

[sgtwilks]

Originally Posted by emfederin

I think "theft" is not only hyperbolic, it's also going to be damned near impossible to prove - if the idiot keeps his mouth shut.

At it's simplest, in order to prove an item was stolen you first have to establish that a particular person owned it prior to being stolen.

Yes, most property laws say that a property owner owns everything IN the ground along with anything ON it; that much is indisputable.

But the prosecution will be tasked with proving that the coins in the guy's pockets came from the owned property in question. If the guy claims he dug them at a site other than the owned site (perhaps even a "curb strip" at the property), then the prosecution has no rebuttal unless there is indisputable evidence to the contrary such as an eyewitness who saw him dig a particular coin from a particular spot on the owned property.

.

I'm not defending the guy's "trespass", and if "stupidity" were a crime he should have been charged with that in the first degree.

Fact is, if the guy had been forthcoming instead of lying about everything he probably would have just been told to leave or issued a summons for trespass. He got his own ass arrested, and rightfully so.

I'm no lawyer, but I have zero doubt that even a PD will get the theft charges thrown out with no trouble. Trespass is a done deal and the state won't want to waste time trying to prove theft for a few dirty coins - assuming said coins are the typical common pieces we dig up.

The kid will take a deal.Looks bad because lied about his Identity. I would of charged him with"interfering with a police investigation"and providing false statements" and "theft" and "trespassing"all 2C charges .

They don't care about the theft charge the just established probable cause for interviewing the suspect. They will throw out the theft but the other charges will stick

Theft of Movable property 2C:20-2

If someone is criminally indicted for theft, at trial the judge will read to the jurors the following jury instructions of the law:

The following charge is to be used when the factual circumstances indicate an unlawful taking of personal property and the value of the property is in dispute. In other instances, reference must be made to 2C:20-2b to determine the degree of theft. See Charge # 2.291 on GRADATION OF THEFT OFFENSES. Note that 2C:20-2b(2) makes some offenses of the third degree regardless of the value of the property).

The indictment charges the defendant with (here read the indictment) . The statute on which the indictment is based is 2C:20-3a which reads in its pertinent part as follows:

A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises control over movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof.

(If appropriate, here define "movable property, "property" and "property of another.")

You cannot find the defendant guilty unless you determine that the State has proven the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the State must prove that the defendant unlawfully took (here describe property listed in indictment). In order to prove an unlawful taking, the State need not prove that the property was carried out of the place in which it was kept, but only that it was moved or taken from its original location. If the defendant is found with the stolen property shortly after it was taken, charge the jury that it may draw an inference that the defendant took the property).

[sgtwilks]

Originally Posted by slater

Here's an article about someone who didn't get permission and paid the price.

http://uppersaucon.patch.com/article...-peoples-yards

Just another example of someone who makes law-abiding metal detectorists look bad. This is near an area that I occasional search in, but certainly not in someone else's yard, and especially not without permission. To top it off, the guy lies about his identity.

Another reminder to obey the laws and get permission.
Rich

Who filed theft charges? He was trespassing,He did provide false statement or report to the police.But theft?

If the police filed theft charges,did a person describe the items stolen?You just can't assume things.

It's not like the suspect was running out of a house with a TV and the owner of the TV gave a description of the stolen object.

I'm sure the theft charge was just to establish contact with the suspect.

The kid is wrong and in some trouble. But theft perks peoples ears up. Now everyone in that area with a detector is stealing.

[ATLfun]

Originally Posted by Sonny b

However, if I came home and saw someone metal detecting in my yard I would be pissed too, especially if he was screaming "BOOM BABY" as I was pulling in the drive

[sweendog]

Originally Posted by sgtwilks

Who filed theft charges? He was trespassing,He did provide false statement or report to the police.But theft?

If the police filed theft charges,did a person describe the items stolen?You just can't assume things.

It's not like the suspect was running out of a house with a TV and the owner of the TV gave a description of the stolen object.

I'm sure the theft charge was just to establish contact with the suspect.

The kid is wrong and in some trouble. But theft perks peoples ears up. Now everyone in that area with a detector is stealing.

It is nice having a seasoned officer give his knowledge/thoughts on the stuff, glad your on our side!! Off topic but I love how you laid the smack down on a previous thread on the lady cop and the grounds keeper.

My only question is why did the guy give not one but TWO false names? If he had nothing to hide, why even dig your self a deeper hole....see what I did there?

[Martin_V3i]

I thought I read somewhere that it was trespass after you were asked to leave once and were caught there again, or if posted no-trespass signs were present. Granted, the guy made a mess out of it with the identity thing. Maybe I missed a fact and he'd been nailed once already. Was he? martin

[sweendog]

Originally Posted by sgtwilks

Who filed theft charges? He was trespassing,He did provide false statement or report to the police.But theft?

If the police filed theft charges,did a person describe the items stolen?You just can't assume things.

It's not like the suspect was running out of a house with a TV and the owner of the TV gave a description of the stolen object.

I'm sure the theft charge was just to establish contact with the suspect.

The kid is wrong and in some trouble. But theft perks peoples ears up. Now everyone in that area with a detector is stealing.

It is nice having a seasoned officer give his knowledge/thoughts on the stuff, glad your on our side!! Off topic but I love how you laid the smack down on a previous thread on the lady cop and the grounds keeper.

My only question is why did the guy give not one but TWO false names? If he had nothing to hide, why even dig your self a deeper hole....see what I did there?

[NMsilver]

Originally Posted by Martin_V3i

I thought I read somewhere that it was trespass after you were asked to leave once and were caught there again, or if posted no-trespass signs were present. Granted, the guy made a mess out of it with the identity thing. Maybe I missed a fact and he'd been nailed once already. Was he? martin

Yeah, that's what I thought too. The law I saw was that its the property owners responsibility to tell someone to leave and the cops only get involved if the person refuses.
Also, if property isn't posted or fenced and locked, there is no reasonable assumption that anyone should know it is private or to whom it belongs (you have to walk on someones property to knock on their door right?)

I'm not excusing what this guy did, not to get permission and to lie about his identity gives us a bad image;But calling the cops and arresting him was overboard I think. Warn him to leave, if he doesn't, call the cops and have them scare him straight.

[diggit1]

Originally Posted by hawgdawg

He was using an old eagle spectrum like mine....wonder if hes going to sell the detector to help pay court cost...

I hope the cops took it.

[kybluegrass]

It's trespass regardless of whether or not there's a sign. Not knowing who owns a piece of land and the lack of a NO TRESPASS sign does not and never has given anyone the right to go on to another person's property. If it's not yours and you don't have permission you are trespassing in one way or another.

[Martin_V3i]

Originally Posted by kybluegrass

It's trespass regardless of whether or not there's a sign. Not knowing who owns a piece of land and the lack of a NO TRESPASS sign does not and never has given anyone the right to go on to another person's property. If it's not yours and you don't have permission you are trespassing in one way or another.

It was an "and/or" situation for instant arrest. I never suggested trespass had not occurred when someone entered personal property without a no-trespass sign, just that a one time occurance should not legally cause legal arrest on the spot, and I don;t believe that it does. If everyone could be arrested on the spot for setting foot on other's properties, the jail would be busy over time. Angry neighbors would be snatched up, old BFs and GF would be arrested first time...it just gets too messy for the cops. If metal dectorists are made different and immediately arrested on first visit, then that is just not right, and I doubt legal.

If the "no trespass sign" is flamingly visable???, then that is another deal. "And-or", that is my point. martin

[kybluegrass]

Originally Posted by Martin_V3i

It was an "and/or" situation for instant arrest. I never suggested trespass had not occurred when someone entered personal property without a no-trespass sign, just that a one time occurance should not legally cause legal arrest on the spot, and I don;t believe that it does. If everyone could be arrested on the spot for setting foot on other's properties, the jail would be busy over time. Angry neighbors would be snatched up, old BFs and GF would be arrested first time...it just gets too messy for the cops. If metal dectorists are made different and immediately arrested on first visit, then that is just not right, and I doubt legal.

If the "no trespass sign" is flamingly visable???, then that is another deal. "And-or", that is my point. martin

I agree with you but I get on here too many times and see people who suggest that they are in the right just because there was no sign. It was totally a judgement call on the half of the arresting officer. Had the guy been up front and honest about the situation he probably wouldn't have ever been arrested. I was just trying to kind of kill the whole "I didn't see a sign, so I thought it was O.K." type of thinking.

[Martin_V3i]

Understood, and good advice. I never "assume" I can drift over on non permission areas, but I've seen people do just that on perimeter properties on a hunt or two, and it pisses me off because it could easily lump me into their trouble on that event since we went to hunt together, even though I am where I am supposed to be at the time.

That example is actually a good topic for another thread, "Whatcha do when your buddy wants to stray onto perimiter, non permission land?" martin