Police To Prosecute Geocacher?

[WH]

I won't place a cache anywhere that I would not be comfortable searching for one. In the post 9/11 world, poking around underneath a large bridge such as this one with a GPS and digital camera is just asking for trouble whether there was a guideline against it or not.

[+OConnellz]

You can come up with examples pretty much anyplace you look.

Which was EXACTLY what I was saying. It was just unfortunate that anyone's first response was, "it must have been over there! We certainly wouldn't have let that go!" When, in fact, it was never clear that this actually was an approved cache ANYWHERE. There are of examples, on both sites, of caches that could be considered in violation.

 

As I said in my post, it wasn't my objective to point fingers and say, "no, not true," but rather to say "Whoa! Is that the appropriate first response?" As Jeremy said, the responsibility goes back to the hider, no matter where it is listed. Moreover, we, as a community that has always been pretty good at self policing, need to make sure that we are supporting each other, and caching in a responsible manner. That means placing caches responsibly, being mindful of the environment when seeking, and making sure that when someone DOES pull something off like this, or many of the other possible examples, it is communicated with the placer, and TPTB when necessary, to make sure that the situation gets corrected.

 

In reality, I don't think that Ron's cache that I linked to was ever a threat (aside from bums), nor is Jennifer & Deans. I found it ironic that a stone was cast by someone who had a cache actually attached to the underside of a popular bridge. The capitol/memorial cache I mentioned was one I thought would be an issue, and I immediately contacted the placer to let them know. I felt like I did the responsible thing, and now they have learned something new.

 

And thank you for supporting the argument that on terracaching.com, the community does consist of responsible cachers who will take action when a fault is revealed! It is precisely that type of action that I am saying we need to focus on rather than "not over here!" I have always enjoyed geocaching, no matter where I find the listing. The enjoyment of the activity supercedes site preference. So does the responsibility of the community, and the individuals within it!

Edited September 29, 2005 by OConnellz

[+TotemLake]

I wonder what charges could be filed, littering???

With Homeland Security, who says they need to file charges?

I'll agree with CacheNCarryMA. Meaningless security measures that approach a police state.

That being said, Discretion is the better part of valor. NYNJPA has a policy making it illegal to take pictures from bridges or within tunnels. I guess it prevents traffic accidents, but is basically a meaningless regulation, trying to look like security!

But, we do need to keep a low profile, and try to avoid entanglements with the authorities (Wimp!) So, rightfully, bridges are off-limits.

Funny that my only runs in with the police were while searching for benchmarks. Oh, well.

In the meantime, I have a fantastic collection of pictures of New York New Jersey Port Authority Bridges, taken from under the bridges, where it is perfectly legal. What kind of security does this provide, again> Not sure that I understand.

Oh, well. Here is my latest bridge picture. Bridges are very beautiful! The Manhattan Bridge

I would not hide a cache here. I'm not that stupid.

Actually, aside from the littering charge, there are two charges that nobody thinks about including myself until recently. It was when I saw the no tresspassing signs that it hit home.

 

Property under and around an interstate bridge or interstate highway is federal property and today is normally fenced off. You'll see new fences being put in place under bridges with any new construction involving the bridge. So, the first charge is trespassing. It is considered a federal offense and it is prosecutable.

 

The second charge can be illegally attaching the cache to the (federal) structure.

 

With today's environment, I can see this poor fellow being handed the book as an example to others in the future.

 

These are points to consider when placing caches in and around highways, bridges, and railroads.

[+StarshipTrooper]

Actually, aside from the littering charge, there are two charges that nobody thinks about including myself until recently. It was when I saw the no tresspassing signs that it hit home.

 

Property under and around an interstate bridge or interstate highway is federal property and today is normally fenced off. You'll see new fences being put in place under bridges with any new construction involving the bridge. So, the first charge is trespassing. It is considered a federal offense and it is prosecutable.

 

The second charge can be illegally attaching the cache to the (federal) structure.

 

With today's environment, I can see this poor fellow being handed the book as an example to others in the future.

 

These are points to consider when placing caches in and around highways, bridges, and railroads.

Just for sake of clarification, Highway 55 - where the Rainbow Bridge is located - is a state highway, and not part of the federal system. Trespassing charges may still apply...

 

Here's a link to a more recent report. Much more accurate reporting this time...

[+reveritt]

Now they are considering sending the hhider a bill for the police man-hours in the incident.

Assuming the hider pays taxes... they already get a bill once a year. Do the police send a bill every time they visit a house for some stupid arguement over who drank the last beer?

Well - for the sake of argument...it's apples to oranges.

 

The bridge was built and maintained for highway traffic. It was not intended to be part of a game. Having to stop traffic to check out the container that was placed there would be considered "extraordinary circumstance", and therefore the county might seek recovery of expense....

It doesn't matter whether the hider pays taxes, or whether it's "apples to oranges." All that matters is whether there is a statute enabling the police to recover their costs in court, and in what circumstances it applies.

 

Is there such a statute? What does it say?

[+Bjorn74]

That video link was pretty helpful. It really made geocaching look mainstream. Well, more mainstream. The officers spoke about it very well, at least.

[+yumitori]

Fine words from someone who ... places them on bridges!

Hmmm. When I placed my cache I don't recall thinking that it would cause any problems, and when Moun10bike listed it he didn't have any questions regarding its location. Of course, I think that was before bridges and other potential terrorism targets were added to the guidelines.

 

I still don't see any reason to be alarmed and think Mr. O'Connell is comparing apples to oranges, but perhaps I'm too close to my own cache. So here's a few pictures of the container and its location. This will likely spoiled the hunt for anyone who might be thinking of looking for it, so be warned...

 

The footbridge where the cache is located.

 

 

The container in its hiding place, taken from the stairs you stand on to reach it.

 

 

The container itself, to give an idea of size.

 

 

So. Does anyone else share Mr. O'Connell's concerns regarding this cache's location or its 'violation' of the geocaching.com guidelines?

[+Moose Mob]

Fine words from someone who ... places them on bridges!

Hmmm. When I placed my cache I don't recall thinking that it would cause any problems, and when Moun10bike listed it he didn't have any questions regarding its location. Of course, I think that was before bridges and other potential terrorism targets were added to the guidelines.

 

I still don't see any reason to be alarmed and think Mr. O'Connell is comparing apples to oranges, but perhaps I'm too close to my own cache. So here's a few pictures of the container and its location. This will likely spoiled the hunt for anyone who might be thinking of looking for it, so be warned...

 

The footbridge where the cache is located.

 

 

The container in its hiding place, taken from the stairs you stand on to reach it.

 

 

The container itself, to give an idea of size.

 

 

So. Does anyone else share Mr. O'Connell's concerns regarding this cache's location or its 'violation' of the geocaching.com guidelines?

That doesn't look threatening to me.

 

Now, can we get back on track?

[+The Leprechauns]

A micro on a pedestrian bridge? Those get listed every day. I'm thinking of hiding a similar one this weekend. I agree; let's focus on things like PVC pipes and ammo boxes and big green buckets hidden on or under bridges carrying interstate, Federal or major State highways.

[+Jaz666]

That trash bin on the bridge is a far greater security risk

[+OConnellz]

<sigh>...

As I said above...

In reality, I don't think that Ron's cache that I linked to was ever a threat (aside from bums), nor is Jennifer & Deans. I found it ironic that a stone was cast by someone who had a cache actually attached to the underside of a popular bridge.

Is there really any point in continuing that 'argument'? I didn't think so. Back to the topic of value here...

 

I liked the revised/updated story that made it clear that the cache that WAS in question, and the cause of all this strife was in violation of the general practices of geocaching. I also like the fact that so much of the community, on both the sites I use to geocache, recognize the fault here, and I am especially that glad that no one seems to be able to identify this as an approved cache.

[+yumitori]

<sigh>...

As I said above...

In reality, I don't think that Ron's cache that I linked to was ever a threat (aside from bums), nor is Jennifer & Deans. I found it ironic that a stone was cast by someone who had a cache actually attached to the underside of a popular bridge.

 

Which leads one to wonder why you brought it up to start with. But I accept your apology.

 

---

 

It seems pretty surprising to me that the container in question seems to have been found so quickly after being placed that the owner never even got a chance to try and get it listed anywhere. Early reports were that it was discovered during a routine inspection; what are the odds that such an inspection would take place so soon after the cache was hidden?

 

The discussion in the Idaho geocaching forums mentions a number of geocachers in the state involved in our sport who are also associated with law enforcement. Perhaps some good will ultimately come out of this, if only more awareness and communication between those geocachers and their fellow officers.

[+macpacfam]

I guess i am getting lost in the whole of the topic. First, I am an Idaho cacher. I have seen some bridge caches before, but none to this extreme. Second, the guy had to scale the bridge to get the shackles nailed into the bridge pillar so he could use a pulley system. To me, that was too much trouble to have to go through to even been approved as a geo cache. At first I felt sorry for the guy an was even willing to set him up with my lawyer in case of need. Now, I feel that he should be on his own, and has probably brought a little shame to the sport. Just my thoughts and thoughts of some other fellow geocachers in Idaho.

[+MedicOne]

Or is listing it on a site that doesn't believe in such 'rules'. I haven't been able to find a cache on geocaching.com that matches the location yet.

 

The above poster was pretty darn quick to point fingers at another site without any research. When I checked the other site, immediately after the above post, I so no evidence of this cache on that "other site" either.

 

What site is it, specifically, that "doesn't believe in such rules?" Do you have evidence that they've violated any rules? I've found over 100 caches on that "other site" and I've not found not one cache that would violate ANY of the rules on geocaching.com.

Edited October 2, 2005 by MedicOne

[Keystone]

MedicOne, you could read my prior posts in this thread for but one example, and one which I viewed as being directly on point -- a cache under a highway bridge that was listed on the other site immediately after I archived it on this one.

[tossedsalad]

Isn't all this bickering off topic??? The discussion is about the cache that the police ended up finding, not the ones that may or may not be posted on this site or others. How about just giving up the fight on who lists the more seriously bad caches???

[+yumitori]

The above poster was pretty darn quick to point fingers at another site without any research. When I checked the other site, immediately after the above post, I so no evidence of this cache on that "other site" either.

 

What site is it, specifically, that "doesn't believe in such rules?" Do you have evidence that they've violated any rules? I've found over 100 caches on that "other site" and I've not found not one cache that would violate ANY of the rules on geocaching.com.

'The other site'? Exactly which one is that? Last I checked there's more than one and none seem to have an identical set of requirements for listing to those on geocaching.com. Heck, we just got through with a discussion from someone who promoted the idea of pretty no limitations on cache placement at all.

 

I had already eliminated navicache.com and terracaching.com as likely listing locations of this container, but that still leaves other possibilities (including so-called B.A.S.E. caching). So I am unclear as to why you and Mr. O'Connell apparently took my comments as an attack on what you seem to think of as 'the other site'. Really, I don't think about you nearly as often as you believe I do.

 

And I'm still curious as to where the owner of the container at rainbow bridge listed or intended to list their cache. Can you help with that question?

[+Eric&Lisa]

Okay, way back to the beginning of this thread.... I just have to laugh at the poor reporting in the media.

 

Police say the object had been placed under the bridge by some people playing a game of hide-and-seek using a portable Global Positioning System.

 

As opposed to the non-portable GPS systems. HA!