an example of a guy who fought a ticket

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
20,637
This wasn't md'ing, but it can be analagous to md'ing. It involves something that is:

a) a grey area of the law. Ie.: a law that can be interpretted a few different ways.

b) an area where it could be argued that the person *could* have asked first, to have avoided any confrontations , tickets, embarassment, etc...

So in that sense, there can be similarities drawn between this, and the debate on grey zones of rules/laws in md'ing. Eg.: the dreaded "alterations", "defacement" and "cultural heritage" verbage.

There was a fellow driving a hearse for a mortuary. The highway patrol stopped him in a carpool lane, for violating the car-pool lane rules (must have 2 or more persons in the vehicle, to use the carpool lane). When the officer explained to the fellow that he had stopped him for only having a single person, the hearse driver explained to the officer that .... in fact ... there WAS another person in the vehicle. Whereupon he pointed to the back (where there was a coffin in transit). The officer said that that didn't qualify as a 2nd person, since .... of course.... that person was dead. Thus the driver's objections fell on deaf ears, and he was given a ticket.

He chose to fight the ticket, and signed up for his day in traffic court. When his turn came to state his case, the judge dismissed the ticket, by observing that the signs on the road there simply state "2 or more persons", and didn't say whether or not the person had to be alive or not. Therefore, the fellow's ticket was dismissed.

true story! :laughing:

As you can see, this fellow did not have to go ask first "can i?". Instead, the system works. And yes, it's never "fun" to get a ticket (and I'm not advocating that we all invite that with open arms), but just saying: don't assume that if .... in the remote chance you did (and HIGHLY UNLIKELY as you'd most likely ever get a "scram" first), that the system CAN work.
 
ok, one specific to md'ing now:

I heard of a guy in San Francisco who got a ticket for hunting city parks there. There is nothing specific prohibiting detecting there, so no doubt the ticket was for ancillary things (dig, alter, deface, or whatever). He decided to fight it. When his day came in the cattle-call of minor tickets, he launched into his script about how he "was doing no harm, he was only metal detecting for loose-change, and he'd checked to make sure it wasn't against the rules, and he makes sure to leave no trace, blah blah" But before he could even start his 2nd sentence, the judge pounded the gavel and said "dismissed". That md'r carried that piece of paper around (with the rubber stamp 'dismissed' on it) for years thereafter , just in case any other busy-bodies were to approach him. I think he even xeroxed it off for a few buddies to carry too :)
 
Really got to reach outside the hobby these days for examples to support your position... Last September, I was in traffic court, fighting a speeding ticket, related to an accident. Where the accident happened, there was hardly enough distance to get up to speed, much less exceed the speed. I drive the same way to work, going on 22 years, don't consider it a safe or sane place to be speeding. Mostly fought the ticket, because it implied I shared fault in the accident, and a little concerned the other party might get the idea to sue. Not sure how that works out, but know enough about court, a lawyer is a good idea, papers need to get filed in a specific time period, and needs to be done correctly. You have to show up when they request. Mess it up, you lose, even if the case had no merit. While waiting for my case, nothing better to do than listen and learn. Vast majority of the tickets were dismissed, the defendant just had to be there. The no shows, got it bad, lost license, traffic school, very large fines, compared to any I'd had to pay. They don't read the driver's history, or go into details, so might have been some very bad boys. One guy didn't show, but his lawyer was there, didn't help though, except make the Judge mad.

My ticket was dismissed as well. The lawyer my insurance company provided, free of charge, was really good. The ticket only took a few seconds, but she got the other driver and his attorney to sign an agreement not to sue. Course, I couldn't sue him either, but that was okay, figure I'd be out more money, and it would be slow getting anything out of him. Not to mention, he was riding a motorcycle, and got thrown off, bounced around some. Dashcam video really made a difference, probably why I got a free lawyer.

 
How is that in any way related to metal detecting? :?: If anything, the story suggests that people can be held to the letter of the law (for better or for worse) so if you were digging in a park that had "no digging" laws you'd be busted. Seems to go against your singular "Never ask" manifesto...
 
.... If anything, the story suggests that people can be held to the letter of the law (for better or for worse) so if you were digging in a park that had "no digging" laws you'd be busted....

ok, I'll go with that, just for argument's sake. Let's say that this story DID do exactly as you're saying. And I'm the first to agree that a "no digging" rule is ... uhhh ... hmmm.... hard to skirt with semantics. Right? Hard to argue to a judge that it implied the "end results" (of holes), right? Ok, then let's just go with that for a minute:

If that's the case, then how is it that people DO routinely hunt parks, where such verbage exists? Either by simply "just doing it", or ..... by getting permission? I mean *certainly* no cop, or city person can authorize you or I to break laws, can they? So to me that merely confirms that it is up-for-interpretation, and isn't specific.

I'm not saying this is pleasant. I mean, I certainly DO wish every last gardener welcomed me with open arms, ready to roll out red carpets :shock: But on the other, so too is a "no" where no one might ever have cared less, neither is THAT "pleasant" either .
 
harvey, that is a NASTY accident! I hope the biker wasn't hurt too bad. Ouch :(
 
ok, I'll go with that, just for argument's sake. Let's say that this story DID do exactly as you're saying. And I'm the first to agree that a "no digging" rule is ... uhhh ... hmmm.... hard to skirt with semantics. Right? Hard to argue to a judge that it implied the "end results" (of holes), right? Ok, then let's just go with that for a minute:

If that's the case, then how is it that people DO routinely hunt parks, where such verbage exists? Either by simply "just doing it", or ..... by getting permission? I mean *certainly* no cop, or city person can authorize you or I to break laws, can they? So to me that merely confirms that it is up-for-interpretation, and isn't specific.

I'm not saying this is pleasant. I mean, I certainly DO wish every last gardener welcomed me with open arms, ready to roll out red carpets :shock: But on the other, so too is a "no" where no one might ever have cared less, neither is THAT "pleasant" either .

You're using a kind of double-logic here Tom. You seem to be saying that while nobody can give you authority to "break the law" (ie. they have to enforce the law at face value, no room for interpretation, can't give you a "yes" to detect), an individual detectorist should go in there and dig anyway because the laws aren't really clear (ie. they could successfully argue the semantics of it, plead that it doesn't specifically mention/apply to MD-ing). How does that work? Surely if you believe an individual can work their way out of the "vagueness" of a law if approached, then surely a person in authority could also choose to allow metal detecting within (despite) those laws, no? In my experience this is exactly how it works. I have been happily given permission in several areas where I could have technically been told "no". And in other areas I have been told "no". What's the big deal? You say getting a "no" is not pleasant, well isn't that just the way life is? If I catch my daughter stealing candy her reply would be, "Well I knew you'd probably say no". Makes sense to her, but she's only 5. Again, if your goal as a detectorist is simply to get into as many places as possible regardless of the legality of it or its effect on the hobby as a whole then, yes, what you suggest is probably the best course of action. But is that what we're after? For a few extra coins? I'm no saint but I'd rather work comfortably within the community laws for the good of the hobby (and to protect myself from possible, though unlikely, legal trouble). After all these hundreds of posts I still don't get the "don't ask because there is a chance the answer could be no" logic. I think it's harmful advice, especially for those new to the hobby. It's a tempting philosophy ("Wow, you mean I can really hunt anywhere as long as I'm sneaky about it??") but to me it really isn't right, and certainly can't be good for the general perception of the hobby. You also make huge blanket assumptions about people in general...your posts all infer that the authorities are always dying to give out a no (or are bound by law to give a no), yet everyone else around really wouldn't care if you had gone ahead and dug anyway. Not always the case Tom. Why do I get the feeling that most of the places you hunt are probably of questionable legality and for that reason you really don't want to many people asking questions.
 
Last edited:
reply

stewart, I think the first parts of your post have been hashed out pretty good between the persons posting here. Because that just goes back to applicability of when and how verbage applies (specific versus vague, etc...). But as to your last part of your post:

You bring up a good issue of: "so what?". Ie.: if you got a no, then what's the big deal? Simply find somewhere else to detect, right? And on the surface, that sounds reasonable enough. Why should anyone else care, right? But here's why:

The matter came to a head for me and the md'rs in our city, when someone in our town went and asked "can I?" at our local parks dept. Someone there told him "no". So the fellow reports this to the club , and confusion ensues. Because odd thing was, the parks here had simply always been md'd no problem :?: Ok, so you tell me: is this "just that one hunter who can't hunt there", or does this constitute a rule that therefore all the cities parks are off-limits now? The fellow would rightly be miffed if he continues to come to club meetings where others can go, but he can't?

Or let me cut to the chase of your possible answer to this dilema: It is now the obligation of the club to corporately go down to " seek clarification" on this. Right? Or what do you do if one person gets a "yes", while another gets a "no" (d/t they showed up on two different days, asking 2 different persons).

Anyhow, as you can see, there are times when it DOES affect more than "just the person asking". And to answer your question, that's why it can affect hobbyists as a whole.
 
Really got to reach outside the hobby these days for examples to support your position... Last September, I was in traffic court, fighting a speeding ticket, related to an accident. Where the accident happened, there was hardly enough distance to get up to speed, much less exceed the speed. I drive the same way to work, going on 22 years, don't consider it a safe or sane place to be speeding. Mostly fought the ticket, because it implied I shared fault in the accident, and a little concerned the other party might get the idea to sue. Not sure how that works out, but know enough about court, a lawyer is a good idea, papers need to get filed in a specific time period, and needs to be done correctly. You have to show up when they request. Mess it up, you lose, even if the case had no merit. While waiting for my case, nothing better to do than listen and learn. Vast majority of the tickets were dismissed, the defendant just had to be there. The no shows, got it bad, lost license, traffic school, very large fines, compared to any I'd had to pay. They don't read the driver's history, or go into details, so might have been some very bad boys. One guy didn't show, but his lawyer was there, didn't help though, except make the Judge mad.

My ticket was dismissed as well. The lawyer my insurance company provided, free of charge, was really good. The ticket only took a few seconds, but she got the other driver and his attorney to sign an agreement not to sue. Course, I couldn't sue him either, but that was okay, figure I'd be out more money, and it would be slow getting anything out of him. Not to mention, he was riding a motorcycle, and got thrown off, bounced around some. Dashcam video really made a difference, probably why I got a free lawyer.


what did you do to that guy seems like he was mad at you or it was a scam to sue you?
 
Really don't know why he did, what he did, probably never will. Didn't ask when we met at the courthouse, just didn't believe I'd get a real answer in front of the lawyers, without him admitting full responsibility. He had a very bright headlight, pretty sure it was intended for off-road, wasn't just highbeams. He was riding aggressively, back and forth between lanes for a while, before I turned off. Every time he got right behind me, I had to slow down, same in the other lane, the headlight was blinding. I didn't see him follow me, passed me pretty quick, then stopped right in front of me. Not sure if he intended to run me off the road, I'd come to a screeching stop, just in time. Not proud of how I reacted, well actually failed to react, to much unexpect, no logic stuff too quickly, I froze.

He seem to be all healed up, no scars, no limp, or anything else. Did appear to have put on quite a bit of weight though. Hopefully he learned something. Was much worse than my religious experience on a motorcycle, haven't ridden much since. I simply hopped off, and walked a way, wonder how I kept it under control, mostly upright, at over 60 MPH...
 
Tom, do you ever actually go out with your metal detector? Do you even own a metal detector? You have started numerous threads on the same subject and post on any other thread even remotely related to it. Average of almost 7 posts per day (and that is just this forum). There you are in California with the weather and locations to get out to but you spend all of your time on this, and apparently other, forums. Those of us in the half of the country that is covered in ice and snow would love to be able to get out and do some hunting but even those of us that are snowbound don't post anywhere near as much as you do, especially the same subject over and over and over ad naseum. Do you have a job? Do you sleep?
 
Really don't know why he did, what he did, probably never will. Didn't ask when we met at the courthouse, just didn't believe I'd get a real answer in front of the lawyers, without him admitting full responsibility. He had a very bright headlight, pretty sure it was intended for off-road, wasn't just highbeams. He was riding aggressively, back and forth between lanes for a while, before I turned off. Every time he got right behind me, I had to slow down, same in the other lane, the headlight was blinding. I didn't see him follow me, passed me pretty quick, then stopped right in front of me. Not sure if he intended to run me off the road, I'd come to a screeching stop, just in time. Not proud of how I reacted, well actually failed to react, to much unexpect, no logic stuff too quickly, I froze.

He seem to be all healed up, no scars, no limp, or anything else. Did appear to have put on quite a bit of weight though. Hopefully he learned something. Was much worse than my religious experience on a motorcycle, haven't ridden much since. I simply hopped off, and walked a way, wonder how I kept it under control, mostly upright, at over 60 MPH...


you would think with a vid like that they would have thrown the book at him
its pretty obvious he was trying to do something unless he's stupid or had a death wish
 
its pretty obvious he was trying to do something unless he's stupid or had a death wish

That was my immediate impression also. Then I watched again and wondered if he thought he had time to pass before reaching the road on the right and tried too hard to slow down and make the turn.
 
Not proud of how I reacted, well actually failed to react, to much unexpect, no logic stuff too quickly, I froze.

Don't forget, on dry pavement, he can out accelerate and out brake you. When he shut it down that fast, you have no chance in a car to stop in the same distance.

You should have no guilt or remorse for his bone headed driving habits.

Papa
 
reply

Tom, do you ever actually go out with your metal detector? Do you even own a metal detector? You have started numerous threads on the same subject and post on any other thread even remotely related to it. Average of almost 7 posts per day (and that is just this forum). There you are in California with the weather and locations to get out to but you spend all of your time on this, and apparently other, forums. Those of us in the half of the country that is covered in ice and snow would love to be able to get out and do some hunting but even those of us that are snowbound don't post anywhere near as much as you do, especially the same subject over and over and over ad naseum. Do you have a job? Do you sleep?

yeah, year-round hunting here. Never snows. Rarely drops below 30*. I have my own business (a street sweeper business, construction/paving related). And business is slow d/t seasonal slowdowns at present. Yes I get out to detect a lot too.
 
That was my immediate impression also. Then I watched again and wondered if he thought he had time to pass before reaching the road on the right and tried too hard to slow down and make the turn.

I've turn this over in my head for over a year. Why even pass, if you are going to take the first right turn? Wouldn't even consider it in a car, no matter what the vehicle in front of me was doing. Seems more likely he intended for me to stop, maybe my slowing down, when I could see the cars around me spoil his chances to slip through traffic. Quite a few cars on the road, be for I turned off. Not sure if it shows, I only posted from where I went into the turn lane.

I did feel a little panic and anxiety for a while, when there were motorcycles on the road, but pretty much over it. The speedy aggressive ones still concern me some, but think they always have, even other types of vehicles.
 
Really got to reach outside the hobby these days for examples to support your position... Last September, I was in traffic court, fighting a speeding ticket, related to an accident. Where the accident happened, there was hardly enough distance to get up to speed, much less exceed the speed. I drive the same way to work, going on 22 years, don't consider it a safe or sane place to be speeding. Mostly fought the ticket, because it implied I shared fault in the accident, and a little concerned the other party might get the idea to sue. Not sure how that works out, but know enough about court, a lawyer is a good idea, papers need to get filed in a specific time period, and needs to be done correctly. You have to show up when they request. Mess it up, you lose, even if the case had no merit. While waiting for my case, nothing better to do than listen and learn. Vast majority of the tickets were dismissed, the defendant just had to be there. The no shows, got it bad, lost license, traffic school, very large fines, compared to any I'd had to pay. They don't read the driver's history, or go into details, so might have been some very bad boys. One guy didn't show, but his lawyer was there, didn't help though, except make the Judge mad.

My ticket was dismissed as well. The lawyer my insurance company provided, free of charge, was really good. The ticket only took a few seconds, but she got the other driver and his attorney to sign an agreement not to sue. Course, I couldn't sue him either, but that was okay, figure I'd be out more money, and it would be slow getting anything out of him. Not to mention, he was riding a motorcycle, and got thrown off, bounced around some. Dashcam video really made a difference, probably why I got a free lawyer.


How does this support your position?
 
Just a recent experience in traffic court. Tom held up a dismissed ticket, like it was a free pass. In my experience from September, most everyone who actually showed up in court, had their tickets dismissed, including me, the guy on the motorcycle. The motorcycle rider did plead guilty to Careless Driving, which was a lesser charge, than his Reckless Driving ticket, for which he could have gone to jail.

Some of the tickets dismissed, were a little questionable, some were dismissed because the officer didn't show up. Most didn't take more than a couple of minutes. The lawyer, who showed up without a client took the longest.

My position hasn't changed. If someone is put into a position of responsibility over a site, still feel asking is the right thing to do. I'm bringing tools onto his site, with the intention of digging a few holes, and he should have an operatunity to voice his opinion on my intended recreational activity on his site. After many of these threads, think Tom's problem with asking, is mostly in his head, plays 'what if' too much, with little or no actual experience talking to the people in charge, unless he gets caught. Maybe it spices up things for him, keeps him sharp, talking his way out of those situation, gives him a sense of superiority, where he's only being given the benefit of doubt, courtesy and respect.

The more Tom goes on and on, about how petty and vindictive the California officials are about metal detecting, really tempts to call out there and ask, just to see if they are really that way, to see if they will cuss an yell 'No Way'. I've never gotten sort of treatment or attitude from a public employee, no matter how much I deserved it. Asking about a recreational activity, doesn't seem like it would be something the would suddenly become a critical issue. They answer a lot of questions, and have more important matters to deal with. They answer the question, move on to next, done deal. Maybe out in California, they have nothing better to do, way over staffed, bored, and need to make work for themselves.

I'd prefer to know that I'm going to be okay hunting a site, and not have someone walk up, tap me on the shoulder to ask me what I'm doing. Having to try and word a response carefully, hoping that it'll be okay, or no worse than having to leave. I'm out hunting, just for fun, worrying about such things will drive you a little crazy (could give one example...), and I've only been hunting a few years. I know I could sneak around for 35 years, without a few issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom