Geocacher Prompts Terrorist Fears

January 14, 2006

By Christopher Smith

ASSOCIATED PRESS

9:57 a.m. January 12, 2006

BOISE, Idaho – Scot Tintsman says he never had any troubles with the law until his girlfriend introduced him to what became his all-consuming passion: the satellite-navigated treasure hunt called geocaching.

"She got me hooked," said the 33-year-old Idaho man, who faces criminal charges for hanging a green bucket beneath a concrete bridge on a major state highway last September.

Read the whole thing.

Was this a disregard of cache listing guidelines?

Did the authorities overreact?

Would you have placed this cache?

Should he blame the girl?

Answer these and more questions right here.

©¿©¬

1.4k · January 14, 2006

Yeah. It's all her fault.

.

Even when geocachers cause public alarm, criminal repercussions appear to be rare. In the case of Tintsman, whose geocache was attached high above the whitewater of Idaho's Payette River on the span of Rainbow Bridge, the local prosecutor filed a charge of placing debris on public property, a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of six months in jail and a $300 fine.

Now I ask you, How did criminal get involved...?

Edited January 14, 2006 by zoltig

3.1k · January 14, 2006

One Word: PERMISSION!!

January 14, 2006

After reading the whole story, my guess is:

1.) He didn't read the cache placement guidelines

2.) He rushed out to hide one before finding many

He states, "I wasn't thinking about terrorism when I placed it under the bridge. I was thinking about making the most extreme cache possible," he said.

Look, I hate lamp post micros as much as the next guy, but can't you start with maybe a Lock 'n Lock under a log or something and slowly move up to Fear Factor caches? :laughing:

5.7k · January 14, 2006

Just another example of over reacting by the authorities and singling out geocachers for persecution.

2.2k · January 14, 2006

There was a pretty good thread here from back when this first happened. Interesting to see how this plays out and how much changes from back then until now.

1.4k · January 14, 2006

Just another example of over reacting by the authorities and singling out geocachers for persecution.

Over reacting?

mmmmmm.... Maybe?

Being singled out was a result of the cause.

These seem to be the times we live in now, I am afraid.

7.3k · January 14, 2006

Hey, that's a really nice article. Possibly the best geocaching article I've seen, actually. Links to the creed no less. Pity about the "get restitution for the expense of the law enforcement and public safety response" part. Not that the taxpayer part of me doesn't kind of agree. Hang a bucket off a highway bridge? I guess he wanted extreme, and he got it.

January 14, 2006

I don't think there was an over reaction. It's sad but that is the world we live in now. It's like wearing your seatbelt everyday. Most will go an life without a realy serious accident. The day your roll your SUV on the freeway at 75MPH, it would be nice to be wearing it. If this thing was dangerous, do you want to be the one to poke it with a stick? Not me.

That's why it's important to consider your container as well as your location. I have placed in an ammo box in the middle of the NV desert in a small town mining community. These things don't scare anyone here. I am planning one at a college in an urban area and have decided to go with glass or see thru plastic to avoid scaring anyone.

At least the article wasn't slanted against the game.

January 14, 2006

Just another example of over reacting by the authorities and singling out geocachers for persecution.

Uh, yeah, ok, whatever. :laughing:

There's a reason you're not supposed to do that, you know, and it's NOT because the authorities are "singling out geocachers".

January 14, 2006

Well there goes my idea of hiding my bucket cache under the middle of the Golden Gate bridege. :unsure:

Just kidding.

24.7k · January 14, 2006

First the cache was repored and the response happened before it was ever listed. Thus the review process may have (and should have) caught it.

Second: He is no more guilty of anything than a fisherman who remembered to grab their beer and left their tacklebox.

Third: Charges are pending for leaving "debris" on state property.

Fourth: The Sheriff is acting in a snit out of annoyance. Not out of rational thought. Meaning the real threat makes bombs. Then we got bomb squats, then we asked people to report bombs, then we got people reporting things they thought were bombs then we got harmless things being responded too. The sheriff shoudl recognize that if you are going to have a better safe than sorry attitude you will get false alarms.

Fifth: Just because there are are people causing real harm with real bombs does not mean that I need to pay the price of giving up some of the freedoms I enjoy such as caching in a remote area. That bridge is a remote area.

Edit: Planted typos for your enjoyment.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Renegade Knight

24.7k · January 14, 2006

I'd not have placed it under the bridge but I would not have any qualms placing a cache in the area.

January 16, 2006

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

January 16, 2006

On a lighter note this is only maybe the 3rd or 4th cache I've heard of that aroused suspicion and the authorities were called. Out of the hundreds of thousands of caches in the world it's a VERY low percentage. Get permission and use common sense.

3.2k · January 16, 2006

Fifth: Just because there are are people causing real harm with real bombs does not mean that I need to pay the price of giving up some of the freedoms I enjoy such as caching in a remote area. That bridge is a remote area.

Well put.

This probably would not ahave been approved based on GC guidelines, however that is the only thing that was wrong. Nothing criminal and, yes, considerable over-reacting by law enforcement.

January 16, 2006

I'm curious about this sentence in the article (refeering to a diffrent incident): "He was a geocacher from Vermont trying to stash a green-and-purple toy snake into a cache placed five weeks earlier that had already been visited by 463 people".

463 people in five weeks?? What cache is that?

6.5k · January 16, 2006

Just another example of over reacting by the authorities and singling out geocachers for persecution.

Over reacting?

mmmmmm.... Maybe?

Being singled out was a result of the cause.

These seem to be the times we live in now, I am afraid.

BINGO! When I was a kid we played on the maintenance catwalks underneath bridges on US Route 1 and the NJ Turnpike (I-95) for kicks and thrills. no one ever paid us any mind, and no one got hurt.

I'll bet today that anyone spotted on them today would have the police and SWAT teams waiting for them before they could ever climb down the ladders. Combine a post 9-11 concern, with cell phones, and a general paranoia (real or overimagined and fueled by TV and the movies), and you realize that (with apologies to Robert Zimmerman)-"the times, they have changed!"

You just need to use some common sense when placing your caches these days. Too bad it's not so common. :grin:

PS it isn't just geocachers that are scaring the innocents in society. Homeless guys leaving flashlights in Starbucks will also get the bomb squad called out. (Kinda shhots down 'hottie's' theory of being singled out, unless he's referring to topless homeless vacationing geocachers? :lol:

Edited January 16, 2006 by wimseyguy

January 17, 2006

There's a micro under 2 miles from my home, of the parking lot variety.

Twas my first find.

Every 8th or 10th entry on the log sheet was "POLICE"......

Think Big Brother isn't watching this game?

3.2k · January 17, 2006

There's a micro under 2 miles from my home, of the parking lot variety.
Twas my first find.

Every 8th or 10th entry on the log sheet was "POLICE"......

Think Big Brother isn't watching this game?

Poor example. While I agree( see earlier post) that the everyone is overeacting to the homeland security scams, a lot of activity in a parking lot, especially if it is in a secluded area, would even cause rise for suspicion pre 9/11. Don't think it has anything to do with GC.

24.7k · January 17, 2006

...PS it isn't just geocachers that are scaring the innocents in society. Homeless guys leaving flashlights in Starbucks will also get the bomb squad called out. (Kinda shhots down 'hottie's' theory of being singled out, unless he's referring to topless homeless vacationing geocachers?

That's a good example. I collect these things. I've got a woopie cushion that was reported on file and some Star Wars toys. I've seen exotic foods reported and so on.

The problem isn't George Lucas, Homelss, Flashlights, Ethnic Food, or Geocaches. The problem lay elsewhere.

January 17, 2006

*sigh* the story just showed up on CNN's website...why is it when I see good articles places recently, now we get the oposite style of reporting. It's not horible, but the headline makes us out to be a bunch of loonies.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/01/17/geocach...n.ap/index.html

Celticwulf

January 17, 2006

Well there goes my idea of hiding my bucket cache under the middle of the Golden Gate bridege.

fwiw, the golden gate bridge is in the golden gate national recreation area, which is NPS land, and no (new) geocaches are allowed there. There is a nice multi that starts on (or under) the bridge. Recommended.

edited to add, my future wife & I were FTF!

Edited January 17, 2006 by WalruZ

January 17, 2006

any idea what the geocachers name was who was from vermont?? he may be my neibor!!! lol :anibad:

1.4k · January 17, 2006

edited to add, my future wife & I were FTF!

Oh! Look at Mr. Self Promotion, here! :anibad:

Nice plug!

January 17, 2006

Regardless of all of the guidelines that were not followed (obviously there is plenty of fault to be attributed to the cacher), the authorities still over-reacted.

Really, I was not aware that the Rainbow Bridge in Idaho is such a strategic target for terrorists. This one ranks up there with the cache that was placed (with permission) under the abandoned rail caboose on the property of an ice cream shop. Those wacky terrorists…

January 18, 2006

Regardless of all of the guidelines that were not followed (obviously there is plenty of fault to be attributed to the cacher), the authorities still over-reacted.

Really, I was not aware that the Rainbow Bridge in Idaho is such a strategic target for terrorists. This one ranks up there with the cache that was placed (with permission) under the abandoned rail caboose on the property of an ice cream shop. Those wacky terrorists…

1st off because of OUR society the authorities have to over react. Failure to do so can result in major lawsuits that the city has to pay out. We live in a society were people point fingers find blame and sue for compensation. If they, who responded, took the attitude that this was probably just some junk left by someone and it blew up or had toxic chemicals in it, etcetera, and etcetera. There sure would be people saying why didn’t you take precaution, why didn’t you call in professionals, are you qualified to make that decision, and so forth.

The authorities are hosed if they do and hosed if they don’t respond to the max. Failure to over react and something goes wrong brings in fault for not doing what is RIGHT. Doing everything brings in criticism that you did too much and overreacted.

And the one thing is everyone and everywhere thinks they are the perfect place for terrorist to attack. If I placed a container under a bridge in Cataract, Wisconsin (where is that!!!) the local authorities surly would think that this must be a terrorist bomb to take out their major infrastructure (a road that gets maybe 100-150 cars a day). Fact is most people in other countries probably have no clue that a Boise, Idaho even exist. Do you know where Gaeta is located in Italy? I do, since I lived there for about 3 years and know 1st hand that most locals know about major cities like NY, San Francisco, Chicago, ect.

Fact is one should not hide caches in or around public structures that are prone to city, county, state inspections unless specific permission was obtained since chances are if the inspector is doing his job they will find it and report it.

Edited January 18, 2006 by pcfrog

January 18, 2006

...Then we got bomb squats...

Edit: Planted typos for your enjoyment.

I dunno, just sounds potentially painful to me.

7.3k · January 18, 2006

463 people in five weeks?? What cache is that?

That cache was a TB Hotel on the outskirts of LAX. The cacher held for questioning was Lemur, (of Otter and Lemur)I believe though I could be wrong. At the time it happened I had just picked up one of their USA geocoins, so the name stuck (okay, if the name is right - it stuck).

January 18, 2006

Being from Wisconsin (of the DeForest Bomb Squad Blows up geocache fame) I am kind of getting tired of the same story being retold. Everytime there is a negative story on GC, the DeForest incident is revisited. I agree with whoever posted, there are only a handful of incidents, but as more people become aware of this addiction, they gotta bring out the bad press. Sigh. Oh, and how is a ammo can under a interstate bridge extreme? Sorry, just me, but I like the ones on a cliff ledge 30 or 40 feet off the ground.

1.4k · January 19, 2006

...because of OUR society the authorities have to over react.

And that's why you can expect to have your nail clippers confiscated if you try to board a plane with them in your carry-on luggage.

January 19, 2006

"Ok everybody to the back of the plane, or this flight attendant gets her nails clipped!"

- bones

January 19, 2006

You may once again take your cigar cutter, your corkscrew, and yes, even your nail clippers on board the aircraft.

Here's the list.

Now can we get back on topic?

©¿©¬

Edited January 19, 2006 by kcart

January 19, 2006

What really bothers me about this whole ordeal is this statement...

County prosecutor Matthew Williams said that he is not seeking jail time but that he would like restitution for the expense of the law enforcement response.

The Expense of the law enforcement response????? Isnt that what taxes are for? Isnt that why the police departments got dollars from the federal govt for the fight of terrorisim???? Its not this poor geocachers fault that they wasted all of thier money on stuff that it was never intended to be spent on.

This prosecuter just wants to punish someone for making the police look silly. The police did not over react but he needs to punish the media for over reacting and over reporting this story when it makes no difference to Joe-Blow in Alaska.

January 19, 2006

Nice counterpoint to the Idaho article here

January 19, 2006

What really bothers me about this whole ordeal is this statement...

County prosecutor Matthew Williams said that he is not seeking jail time but that he would like restitution for the expense of the law enforcement response.

The Expense of the law enforcement response????? Isnt that what taxes are for? Isnt that why the police departments got dollars from the federal govt for the fight of terrorisim???? Its not this poor geocachers fault that they wasted all of thier money on stuff that it was never intended to be spent on.

This prosecuter just wants to punish someone for making the police look silly. The police did not over react but he needs to punish the media for over reacting and over reporting this story when it makes no difference to Joe-Blow in Alaska.

I totally agree. Our tax dollars are at work here and yes this event did use some of those resources. But those dollars are being used EXACTLY for what they were intended. The fact that they officials are crying is plain silly. If they see it as a waste of our dollars at work, then THEY need to educate themselves so they can use their limited budget/resources.

But this in no way makes the cacher hider blameless. The location was indeed a BAD choice.

January 19, 2006

Tintsman, whose geocache sat high above the whitewater of Idaho's Payette River, was charged with placing debris on public property, a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail and a $300 fine. County prosecutor Matthew Williams said that he is not seeking jail time but that he would like restitution for the expense of the law enforcement response.

-----------------

This is irritating.

"...placing debris on public property"... Every cache must be placed on public property unless permission is given by the property owner. This would indicate that placing a cache subjects one to the possibility of jail time and $300+ in fines.... at least in Idaho. Unless it's a micro, any cache could be construed as a bomb by the right person.

Also, I question the timing of this article as it happened last September. The media must continually remind us to stay paranoid.

Kudos to Bryan Roth's response. With approximately 225,000 caches located in over 219 countries, geocaching is not an obscure hobby. It takes about 30-seconds for a law enforcement offical to confirm a cache.

-db

January 19, 2006

Nice counterpoint to the Idaho article here

Good article. The last sentence sums it up...

"But we say, the day you can't get out there, find a hidden box containing a cool bunch of loot, and switch out a 1961 quarter for a tiny rubber dinosaur, then the terrorists have already won."

-db

January 19, 2006

This is a standard response by law enforcement. Error on the side of caution. How much is the savings worth when it blows the bridge and/or injures someone because Deputy Brave says, "It looks harmless. I'll open it and check." Like that wouldn't make the "Darwin Awards".

As far as getting reimbursement, I don't see that happening. It's just a newspaper clip to make someone think twice about putting stuff on bridges.

Checking GC isn't a reasonable expectation. I doubt the first thing the commanding officer on the scene does is check GC to check on a cache that isn't even posted yet. Would not have helped.

I'm willing to bet this incident is of a lot more interest to us, than to just about anyone else in America. It's probably forgotten by all but a dozen people not on GC.

January 20, 2006

Tintsman, whose geocache sat high above the whitewater of Idaho's Payette River, was charged with placing debris on public property, a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail and a $300 fine. County prosecutor Matthew Williams said that he is not seeking jail time but that he would like restitution for the expense of the law enforcement response.
-----------------

This is irritating.

"...placing debris on public property"... Every cache must be placed on public property unless permission is given by the property owner.

That's not correct. *Every* cache requires permission from the property owner, regardless of whether it's on property public or private. *Every cache*.

If the hider (Mr Tintsman) did not in fact have permission, then he did in fact leave 'debris on public property'.

Kudos to Bryan Roth's response. With approximately 225,000 caches located in over 219 countries, geocaching is not an obscure hobby. It takes about 30-seconds for a law enforcement offical to confirm a cache.

Happens that I have two friends - one a state patrolman, another the IT guy for the local dispatch center - and I asked them over the weekend about just that. "How long would it take you guys to identify a geocache?" Turns out that not all the law enforcement cars locally have GPS - and there isn't an internet enabled computer in the dispatch center. It could take anywhere from 5-10 mins (GPS in car, then someone in the dispatch center has to find time to get out to an internet enabled machine), to over half an hour (get a GPS enabled car on site, then someone in the dispatch center has to find time to get out to an internet enabled machine).

Geocacher Prompts Terrorist Fears

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation