Court Houses

I think what this boils down to is that you should not be giving people advice that "could" get someone in trouble. You are correct, you'll probably just get a "scram". But the possibility of losing your freedom is not something I would take to chance. You can argue it all day long, but again, why chance it? What do you have to gain that could not be found elsewhere?
 
Just an update, I went in and got permission to hunt the grounds with absolutely no problems at all. Unfortunately I only found one 16 gauge Headstamp and junk.
 
North☆Star;2812581 said:
Just an update, I went in and got permission to hunt the grounds with absolutely no problems at all. Unfortunately I only found one 16 gauge Headstamp and junk.

Ain't that the way it goes! Nice try, it would not hurt to go back and try a couple more times though before writing it off. Some sites take a few hunts to really evaluate.
 
North☆Star;2812581 said:
Just an update, I went in and got permission to hunt the grounds with absolutely no problems at all. Unfortunately I only found one 16 gauge Headstamp and junk.

thanx for the update. A word to the wise: Even though I'm of the opinion we md'rs don't "need permission" for places (unless there were an express rule to the contrary), yet .... NOW that you have it: STILL pick discreet low traffic times. Because the fact of permission still doesn't guarantee that the next busy-body might not come up and gripe. And you can "flash your permission", only to see it promptly revoked.

This is an all-too-common scenario. The griper gets on his cell-phone, calls whoever gave you the yes, and says ".... But he's tearing the place up!" (which isn't true, of course). So whether I have "permission" or not, I always do low traffic (ie.: nights) when it comes to nice manicured turf. So peaceful. So serene :roll:
 
thanx for the update. A word to the wise: Even though I'm of the opinion we md'rs don't "need permission" for places (unless there were an express rule to the contrary), yet .... NOW that you have it: STILL pick discreet low traffic times. Because the fact of permission still doesn't guarantee that the next busy-body might not come up and gripe. And you can "flash your permission", only to see it promptly revoked.

This is an all-too-common scenario. The griper gets on his cell-phone, calls whoever gave you the yes, and says ".... But he's tearing the place up!" (which isn't true, of course). So whether I have "permission" or not, I always do low traffic (ie.: nights) when it comes to nice manicured turf. So peaceful. So serene :roll:

Yup, I agree 100%. I went in at 8am Saturday and it was quiet. The grounds keeper, who I had received the permission from, stopped in to check a few things and came over to see how I was doing. We chatted for probably 10 minutes about things I have found over the years. There will always be grumpy, negative people in the world that do not like what we do but, there are many more that find it fascinating. I've always loved the interaction with such people and always walk away from those conversations feeling cheerful and kinda proud:grin:
 
I would like to say one thing, that sometimes gets forgotten in these threads.

Where you live, matters.

What I mean, is this -- I grew up in western Pennsylvania. I am also a hunter; deer, small game, you name it. Now, in Pennsylvania, it's a rather common practice during the fall hunting season to simply drive around, look for a nice patch of woods, and then get out and hunt. If you live there, you know exactly what I mean. The rule of thumb is, if there is not a "posted, no trespassing" sign, then of COURSE you can hunt there. Property owners know it, hunters know it, EVERYONE knows it. IF, for whatever reason, a landowner does not want anyone on his land (and it's rare), he KNOWS that it is HIS RESPONSIBILITY to put up no trespassing signs. Otherwise, it's just a given that anyone can use the land for hunting. Now, if you are wanting to hunt an active farm, anywhere near the barn or homes, most people will ask the farmer first. But just a patch of woods or an unoccupied field? It's fair game, and again, EVERYONE knows it. It's just kind of understood, a custom. No one -- hunter OR property owner, ever gives it a second thought. SO, metal detecting in that part of Pennsylvania is much the same. If it's out in the country, a patch of woods, no homes nearby, NO ONE CARES. Again, it's just the local custom in that area.

ON THE OTHER HAND, my first move away from PA after college was to move to Texas. One of my first questions, upon arrival, to the guys at the office was, "hey, where is a good place around here that I might go deer hunting?" They all just LAUGHED at me. "You can't; you need a lease." A what? You mean a hunting license? No -- a LEASE! I had no idea what they were talking about! Over time, I came to understand -- property in Texas (and in Oklahoma, where I live now...and across much of the "West") is OFF LIMITS, without express permission from the owner. People out here have a TOTALLY different attitude toward property, both the owner of the property, and those who wish to use said property (for hunting, or fishing, or whatever). I can't even begin to describe how different the local customs are here, compared to back home.

SO -- my long-winded point is this. I see that the one person raising the most objection to hunting without permission is from Texas. And I GET THAT, from his perspective (now that I have lived in this part of the country for over 20 years). But, what gets lost in these threads is that customs are different -- VERY different, in different parts of the country. A person in Pennsylvania would LAUGH at the absurd idea of going through the trouble to find out who owns this little piece of forest or field out in the middle of nowhere, just to ask permission to take a walk with their detector. Because ABSOLUTELY NO ONE cares! It's NO PROBLEM! On the other hand, someone in Texas might likewise laugh -- equally hard -- at the absurd idea that anyone would even THINK you could take a walk through a forest or field for ANY reason, without SPECIFIC PERMISSION from the landowner.

There is no universal "answer." That's, I think, why some of the disagreements occur in these threads, that BBsGAL referred to earlier. We all might keep in mind that where you are raised, and the local customs, play into our perspectives each time we respond to posts such as this one. There is no universal answer, with respect to private property, or even public property.

From this point of view, Tom in CA's perspective on permission, etc. would make total, complete, logical, obvious sense to most western Pennsylvanians (myself included). Meanwile, CJ319's perspective would likewise be "a given," an entirely correct and rational point of view, that would totally resonate with most Texans. Having lived in both places, I can completely see why some of these threads end up in disagreements...

Just my two cents...

Steve
 
Last edited:
.... Where you live, matters....

Great post Steve. There are parts of the country where the no one cares. (hunting, md'ing, walking, fishing, etc....). People would take a short-cut cross a vacant lot, or fish the banks of a Random stream w/o thinking for a moment . And perhaps other parts of the country where I suppose "no one steps off the sidewalk" type-of-attitude.

Hence, sure: If you're in one of the "no one steps off the sidewalks" parts of the USA, then sure: Don't throw caution to the wind.
 
Without reading the entire thread here...did someone reply that anyone was ever known to actually be cuffed and arrested, for day hunting a courthouse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Without reading the entire thread here...did someone reply that anyone was ever known to actually be cuffed and arrested, for day hunting a courthouse? ...

Ha :roll: I read this supposed "imminent threat" often time, on threads involving where you supposedly can and can't detect. Folks that think "silent on the subject" (ie.: no rules that mention metal detecting either way) isn't good enough. They want "express allowance" (red carpets rolled out).

The common pushback will be like you say "You might get arrested!" And "share a cell with Bubba", blah blah blah. And when you ask them if they can cite any such incident of "arrests" and "jail" for md'ing : You only hear the sound of crickets.

And to the extent that they might hop on google and find a legal incident, it is almost invariably ALWAYS someone night sneaking obvious sensitive monuments. Or someone who can't take a warning. Or in some way being obnoxious. Or someone who.... with an ounce of common sense, could have known better. But for run-of-mill normal parks ? Nah.

If someone is still skitish, they can simply look up the rules of the park usage. If it's a county courthouse, it's probably a county park lawn. If it's a state courthouse, it's probably a state park lawn, and so forth. Thus the rules of use can be looked up on line. Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc....
 
North☆Star;2806945 said:
Ok guys... Court houses are county property so does a person need to ask if your certain there are no metal detecting restrictions on county land, or just go for it? I know the better option is to always ask first but just wondering if anyone has experience with them and how things went!

Not all courts are county property. There are also federal courts. They are, as you might guess, federal property. Generally, they are in the capital and aren't likely to have an area to detect. However, if they do, you will draw immediate attention by LEOs. Will you get arrested for detecting federal courts? It is possible, but not guaranteed. If you are lucky, they will just tell you to leave.

As far as the County district courts - keep in mind that all country land is not equal. Some land has different restrictions bases upon the use. Detecting a court house will draw immediate LEO attention if the court is open for business. You will surely be told to leave. You most likely won't get arrested unless you do something to warrant being arrested, like arguing with them. Once they ask you to leave and you do not, you are officially tresspassing. Though, the country courts may not care as much if it is on a Sunday or a holiday and court is not in session.

Neither level of court wants strange people with strange electronic devices roaming around outside. For all they know, your metal detector could be a cleverly disguised listening device and you could be spying on client/lawyer conversations, private conversations between judges and attornies, etc.
 
In my little town, the Courthouse and Police Dept/jail/drunk tank occupy the same building...thats why I dont hunt there...I mean hey, Why make it so easy on them to find me? :laughing::laughing:
 
I hunted a courthouse garden a couple months back. The park is maintained by the local council so no problem hunting there. Found about two dozen old coins, 4 of which silver, around $30 in modern coins and two silver pendants. Even ran across the council guys on all three hunts there and they didn't mind me there.
 
.... will draw immediate LEO attention if the court is open for business.....

Well, gee, isn't this true of ANYWHERE we md'rs hunt ? Substitute "busy body" or "lookie-lou" in place of "LEO" to what you are saying . Then, yes, it fits to about any park.

Because of the ... uh ... "connotations" that md'ing draws in some people's minds, then sure: If you waltz out @ high traffic times, on nice manicured turf, well ....... what did you expect ?

Thus you're right : You don't go to nice-manicured turf (whether it be courthouse lawns, or otherwise), when they are "open for business". If ... by that ...it means hours when you are opening yourself up for scrutiny.

So the moral of the story lesson for your post is : Go when they're closed. Court case schedules, office workers, etc... generally wrap up @ 5 or 6pm daily, right ? No office workers and court cases on Sundays, right ? Like nose-picking: Not illegal, but .... discretion of timing is wise, so as not to offend the squeamish. :roll:
 
The biggest take-away to these posts is.....

It's easy for someone with no skin in the game, to tell you to "go ahead".

Keep that in mind.
 
... It's easy for someone with no skin in the game, to tell you to "go ahead"....

Do you see the implied / inferred premise in your post ? That there's "skin" in the game. Eg.: some risk, or danger, or liability, or legal issues. Right ? That seems to be implicit. Otherwise, what "skin" are you talking about ?

Hence, ok SURE : If your implied premise is true, then by all means, your desired conclusion is true. Ie.: no one should do what's "risky" or "dangerous" or contains liability and legal issues.

But since when is that a necessary "given" here ? At least in-so-far as normal day-to-day living goes. Ie.: NO ONE is ever guaranteed that a lion won't attack them if they leave their front door. Or that a 747 might crash on you, etc... And each of us chooses our own caution levels. But to infer that there is, OF NECESSITY an imminent or highly potential threat, is to imply something that is not necessarily a given.
 
Well, gee, isn't this true of ANYWHERE we md'rs hunt ? Substitute "busy body" or "lookie-lou" in place of "LEO" to what you are saying . Then, yes, it fits to about any park.

Umm, Court Houses are significantly different from parks. Minimize it all you want. It doesn't change things. Maybe it is different in California than it it is here in Massachusetts.

in MA, the local police don't care in you detect in parks - unless someone complains about you. They have to investigate the report. In almost all cases they ask how the hunting is and say someone complained and they had to come over.

However, the state police and the county sherrifs will care if you are detecting a court house whether anyone complains or not because of the very purpose of the building.
 
Umm, Court Houses are significantly different from parks....


Yes, I can agree with this. Even though there might not be a rule at either "park". And even though each one is administered by the exact same agency, with the exact same rules ("county park", in the case of county courthouse park vs regular county "park").

In each case, although they're the exact same entity and rules, yet you are right: The VERY NATURE of "courthouse" will mean 1) lots of office people coming and going, 2) lots of LEO type people coming and going

Thus yes: A person doing a courthouse lawn should practice 2x much of discretion (ie.: choose low traffic hours), than a normal park. Agreed.
 
NO ONE is ever guaranteed that a lion won't attack them if they leave their front door. Or that a 747 might crash on you, etc...

I'm a proven lion repellent.

Statistically proven as a matter of fact, since I, nor anyone in my immediate vicinity, has even been attacked by a lion.

Ditto for the 747.

Guess where that shoots your theory to?

agy4p2n_700b.jpg
 
Another problem is there is more than 1 person that can give you that permission or not. A group of detectorists called up a county courthouse and spoke to whom they assumed was the dispatcher. He said sure go ahead, no problem. A short while later, a judge comes running out in his robe saying you can't do that on MY courthouse lawn. As he's going nuts on them, a few sheriffs cars pull up to reinforce his no, being told what criminals they are and what would happen to them if they ever showed up again. Their permission was certainly cancelled quickly. So, permission from 1 lawman wasn't enough.
 
Another problem is there is more than 1 person that can give you that permission or not. A group of detectorists called up a county courthouse and spoke to whom they assumed was the dispatcher. He said sure go ahead, no problem. A short while later, a judge comes running out in his robe saying you can't do that on MY courthouse lawn. As he's going nuts on them, a few sheriffs cars pull up to reinforce his no, being told what criminals they are and what would happen to them if they ever showed up again. Their permission was certainly cancelled quickly. So, permission from 1 lawman wasn't enough.


George, George, George, I have been harping on that drum, that your story encapsulates, for a long time .

I get a chuckle out of folks who ....... in an attempt to bolster the notion that we need, or should get permission @ public parks. And in their data to bolster that notion, they invariably have a story (or a link they can post to of other md'rs stories), of "permission" that someone got at a certain place. And in their mind's eyes, that means: "See ?? It was good that I asked. Because now I can go in peace and don't have to 'look over my shoulder' ", blah blah.

The mere fact that someone gets a "yes" somewhere, somehow is supposed to support the notion that ... therefore, it's a good idea to do that wherever you come to.

But your story is not unique. The md'r still gets accosted by a busy-body. The md'r proudly whips out their 'permission'. Only to get it promptly revoked. And the md'r is then scolded for getting permission under false pretenses (failed to mention "dig" and "holes"). Or scolded that the person they got it from wasn't authorized, blah blah.

So why play Russian Roulette ? Just go at low traffic times (after 6pm or on Sundays), when "Judges in black robes" are not present. Presto, problem solved.
 
Back
Top Bottom