Geocache ID card

[+randocache]

Just wondering if anyone has thought of making a Geocache I.D. card. I like urban caches but have had a few close calls with security guards. It's only a matter of time before I'm hauled into some office for questioning. I know that this is part of the thrill of urban caching but at some point it would be nice to have something that identified yourself as a geocacher. I know that if Groundspeak would provide that in their store I'd buy it. What do ya think?

[+The Leprechauns]

The best thing to carry is the Geocacher University brochure that introduces geocaching. An ID card wouldn't mean much.

[+briansnat]

I don't think it would be wortht the paper its printed on to the authorities. If you aren't breaking any laws you don't have to worry about security guards. If you're tresspassing or otherwise venturing where you don't belong a fake ID card isn't going to help.

 

If you need to explain geocaching to a suspicious police officer, the brochure Lep mentioned is as good as anything you can show someone.

Edited August 30, 2006 by briansnat

[+BlueDeuce]

but at some point it would be nice to have something that identified yourself as a geocacher.

 

The incessant need to explain geocaching at length in an attempt to recruit others is biggest identifier. At least it is for me.

 

Proving who I am to authorities? I'll stick with the government issued cards.

[+VeryLost]

I like urban caches but have had a few close calls with security guards. It's only a matter of time before I'm hauled into some office for questioning. I know that this is part of the thrill of urban caching but at some point it would be nice to have something that identified yourself as a geocacher.

 

Just show the security guards your ACLU membership card. That'll really annoy them

[+bigdog999]

I have made a ID card, more for events than for other purposes. Also if I get hurt, they can identify the body : )

[+Sommers]

Not sure an GC ID card would do any good. I've been carrying a "Bikini Inspector" ID from Spencer's for years....it has yet to get me OUT of trouble..

[+oldsoldier]

bigdog999 Posted Today, 04:58 PM

I have made a ID card, more for events than for other purposes. Also if I get hurt, they can identify the body : )

 

Thats what dog tags are for

Edited August 31, 2006 by oldsoldier

[bogleman]

Just wondering if anyone has thought of making a Geocache I.D. card. I like urban caches but have had a few close calls with security guards. It's only a matter of time before I'm hauled into some office for questioning. I know that this is part of the thrill of urban caching but at some point it would be nice to have something that identified yourself as a geocacher. I know that if Groundspeak would provide that in their store I'd buy it. What do ya think?

 

Not to pound this one to death but if you are asked for ID you had better show the real deal or be ready for what will come next .

 

As for the cards they can be made on the computer very easily - if you have word or another application you can print up a bunch of business cards and even add your picture/logo on picture quality paper then take them to Kinkos and run them through the laminator - would make a nice personal trade item.

[+cache_test_dummies]

An ID card wouldn't mean much.

I don't think it would be worth the paper its printed on to the authorities.

What!!?

 

Dang. Well, that's twenty-five bucks just plain wasted.

 

[+rogueleader1977]

I was stopped by a police officer the other day. I was looking for a cache at a small roadside monument (just a plaque/ marker nothing big). I found it strange because I really was not behaving suspiciously (i.e. crawling under the monument or something). Aren't people supposed to look at those markers? Isn't that why they are there? Anyway, back to my point of posting here, when he asked if I had a liscence on me my first thought was 'you need a liscence to geocache here?'. Then I realized he wanted my DRIVERS lisence! BTW come to found out he was out of his jurasdiction, now I'm really puzzled as to why he stopped me.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Not to pound this one to death but if you are asked for ID you had better show the real deal or be ready for what will come next ph34r.gif .

 

As for the cards they can be made on the computer very easily - if you have word or another application you can print up a bunch of business cards and even add your picture/logo on picture quality paper then take them to Kinkos and run them through the laminator - would make a nice personal trade item.

 

I agree. The basic cacher business card is much preferable to any "official" looking ID badge. You will get in a LOT more trouble with authorities pretending to be some kind of "official". A card stating that you are a geocacher with personal contact information and web site address is adequate and a polite thing to have.

 

Laws differ, but what I was taught in KY a few years back, the law on "impersonating a public servant" basically said you were in violation if you claimed to be pretty much any person of authority if the intent of claiming such authority was to gain a benefit from another. That is a pretty loose definition.

 

I think a case could be made that by claiming to be a geocacher (the truth), and expecting the security guard to somehow interpret that as giving you a "right" to be on the property (quite a strettttch of the truth), you are attempting to get a special favour from the security guard (that he'll let you be).

 

It is probably pretty far-fetched to think you would be charged, but not really worth placing yourself in the position of "test case".

 

Even if it is not chargeable, the impression of impersonation that the ID might give to the guard will probably set the general tone for the rest of the encounter.

 

EDIT: added quote cause i wasn't fast enough to get it under the post to which i was agreeing.

Edited August 31, 2006 by Confucius' Cat

[+H2OBob]

The first time I was stopped by police, all I had was my drivers license. I got patted down, then I had to explain what I was diong, 'lurking' in the bushes. It's not easy to explain geocaching to someone that never heard of it before.

 

The second time, I had the "Let's Go Geocaching" brochure with me, and it was a much more relaxed conversation. I left him the brochure to pass around to his fellow officers, and he was quite interrested in the hobby. I'll bet he went right to the police station, and looked up GC.com!

 

ALWAYS have your drivers license when caching.

[+One of the Texas Vikings]

Nah.... the easy way is to pull my .45 auto out to show them that I am armed and they don't have to

worry about me getting mugged..!

If that doesn't work, just ask them "what they are doing there, is the donut shop closed" ???

 

All kidding aside. I think the brochure is best. Remember anyone can make an ID card.

 

I was a Police Detective for 6 years and in Detective School, the first thing they taught us,

is when being stopped by uniformed personel, do everything the nice Policeman tells you

to do, until you get a chance to explain or identify yourself. Remember, bad guys are in a rush

to either get away or get rid of the cop. So take your time, don't be in a hurry to explain,

give the police a chance to observe you and decide if you are a threat.

Always carry good identification. (driver's license, state id card, passport, etc)

[+krisandmel]

As far as I know, if you are just walking around (that is, not operating a motor vehicle on public roads) you don't have to give you ID to anyone, police officers included.

 

This is not (the former) East Germany, you don't have to present your "papers" if you don't want to.

 

However, if you choose to withhold your identity from the police, there are situations in which you can and will be detained until they can determine you aren't doing anything wrong.

So, in general, it is more convenient to just hand over your license and try to explain truthfully what you are doing.

 

You also do not have to answer any questions put to you by police officers and you cannot be searched/frisked if you are just walking around.

It gets into grey areas, but if you are walking and an officer approaches and asks if he can talk to you, and you consent, you have also just consented to being patted down.

Since you consented to the conversation, you just gave the officer permission to pat you down for his/her own safety.

 

So, if you're walking and don't want to be questioned or searched, when the officer asks if he can talk to you, you politely say "no".

If the officer continues anyway, anything discovered in their questions or search is inadmissable.

 

So, if you did say "no", but they continue, DO NOT resist.

 

Like I said, there are some grey areas here, and it's getting late in my work 'day', so I'm tired, and I haven't read Terry v. Ohio lately, but I think I got most of that right.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. Oh, and as always, anything you read on the net is a poor substitute for a proper legal opinion from lawyers or past case rulings.

 

-K

[CoyoteRed]

Here's a card I made a while back. I keep a couple in my wallet.

 

The above version is printed on one side and is to be folded twice to create something business card sized.

 

If your printer can print two sides accurately, here is a front and a back version. After cutting these out you simply fold it over once.

 

Any document like this will help in an encounter as it sets the stage that you're not simply pulling your story out of your behind on the spot.

[+Kryten]

Geocachers tend to bahave in ways which appear suspicious to others. If the police stop you, it is because their alert mechanism has been triggered and you need to get them on your side as soon as possible. Anything that you do to hinder the process of identification will simply cause them to mentally change your status from "question" to "bad guy" and a bad attitude will only ensure that they ruin your day while they confirm your story. A card which briefly explains geocaching is better than the rabling incoherent explanation with much hand waving that most of us would give when under pressure. A card which pretends to be ID is asking for trouble.

[+GreyingJay]

 

I want to be there when you show that to an official

[+krisandmel]

I just want to clarify, I'm not advocating "messing with" the cops or treating them like jackbooted thugs out to ruin your fun.

I respect the profession, and I wish local government prioritized funding better so we could have many many more on the street at all times.

 

I am only trying to convey that unless you protect your freedoms, you lose them.

 

Geocaching properly is not illegal in the least.

If it was a major problem, it would be pretty simple for the government to 'turn off' all GPS signals to the public.

 

As long as you are geocaching properly, your status is no different than that of a volleyball player, a chess player, or a hiker.

No need to rationalize our recreation to the authorities.

And no need to feel like a criminal when treated like one.

 

If I'm out 'caching and am asked what I am doing by a police officer, or a game warden, I will truthfully tell them.

Then I will be on my way. No further questions.

I will step around the individual, and continue with my recreation.

If I am physically detained, I will not resist. But I won't say a word, and the burden is on them to justify my detention.

It would be a hassle, I might see the back of a squad car, but as I had done nothing wrong, I would be released at some point.

It would be inconvenient to be sure, but that is the price of protecting ones liberty.

 

It seems most people think they are required to identify themselves and explain what they are doing to any officer of the law.

Not so.

There's plenty of case law to back that up.

(As stated in my prior post, if you are driving in public, the rules are much different.)

 

Although incorrectly attributed directly to Ben Franklin, this quote nevertheless is quite significant:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

In a nutshell: They are your Rights, use them or lose them.

 

Will your protection of your rights cause you inconvenience?

Many times, yes.

 

Is it worth it?

Every time, yes.

 

$.02, -K

[+sbell111]

...You also do not have to answer any questions put to you by police officers and you cannot be searched/frisked if you are just walking around.

It gets into grey areas, but if you are walking and an officer approaches and asks if he can talk to you, and you consent, you have also just consented to being patted down.

Since you consented to the conversation, you just gave the officer permission to pat you down for his/her own safety....

I agree with most of your post, but I think this part is incorrect. Talking and frisking are mutually exclusive events.

[+sbell111]

... Although incorrectly attributed directly to Ben Franklin, this quote nevertheless is quite significant:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ...

Actually, Ben Franklin did write that on November 11, 1755. The cool thing about Ben Franklin, is that he kept really good notes. It's true that Franklin and others during the Revolution expressed similar variations of that quote.

[Hogosha]

Krisandmel,

Wow! that certainly is an interesting (and dangerous) interpretation of your rights! What we are talking about here is what is an "unreasonable" search and seizure. True, if you are just standing around, doing NOTHING, and a Police Officer asks you what you are doing, that is one thing......but we as geocachers are not doing that, are we?

 

Things to consider, has the Police Officer received a call of suspicious activity, is it day or night, could it appear, to a non-geocaching Police Officer that you may be vandalizing public property, hiding drugs, burying a body...whatever. Point is, you, me, WE, when geocaching may look suspicious, and it is the Police Officers right to CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION! They are not violating your rights, or harassing you, they are actually protecting you, as a law abiding citizen against possible criminal activities. Is it an inconvenience? Sure, but it is probably better to cooperate fully, explain our actions politely, and then leave when it is OK to do so. "Stepping around Police Officers to continue with your recreation" when a legitimate investigation is going on is a great way to get yourself detained, in a squad car, or down at the station house. And by doing so, you are protecting YOUR rights, but taking away others rights to be protected by that Police Officer, since they are being taken off the streets to investigate NOTHING! And chances are that Polce Department is probably understaffed, nobody ever says there a too many cops!

 

I am 110% behind you in protecting our rights, this is not a personal attack on you, we are probably a lot alike, but think of it from the Police officers view, think of the big picture. We are a bit sneaky, are we not?

[+sbell111]

Krisandmel,

Wow! that certainly is an interesting (and dangerous) interpretation of your rights! ...

I'll just keep it simple, since this is not the topic of the thread, and state that I disagree with almost all of your post.

[+Kryten]

From time to time we will attract the attention of the forces of law and order. In their eyes that box we just found/hid could contain a weapon, a drugs stash, stolen goods or explosives. It is certainly suspicious that we went to an unusual place and tried to make sure that we were not observed. Since volleyball players, chess players, and hikers do none of these things, we can expect more police attention than they do because by our behaviour we brought it on ourselves.

[Hogosha]

From time to time we will attract the attention of the forces of law and order. In their eyes that box we just found/hid could contain a weapon, a drugs stash, stolen goods or explosives. It is certainly suspicious that we went to an unusual place and tried to make sure that we were not observed. Since volleyball players, chess players, and hikers do none of these things, we can expect more police attention than they do because by our behaviour we brought it on ourselves.

 

Very well said!

[+Clothahump]

As far as I know, if you are just walking around (that is, not operating a motor vehicle on public roads) you don't have to give you ID to anyone, police officers included.

 

This is not (the former) East Germany, you don't have to present your "papers" if you don't want to.

 

However, if you choose to withhold your identity from the police, there are situations in which you can and will be detained until they can determine you aren't doing anything wrong.

So, in general, it is more convenient to just hand over your license and try to explain truthfully what you are doing.

 

You also do not have to answer any questions put to you by police officers and you cannot be searched/frisked if you are just walking around.

It gets into grey areas, but if you are walking and an officer approaches and asks if he can talk to you, and you consent, you have also just consented to being patted down.

Since you consented to the conversation, you just gave the officer permission to pat you down for his/her own safety.

 

So, if you're walking and don't want to be questioned or searched, when the officer asks if he can talk to you, you politely say "no".

If the officer continues anyway, anything discovered in their questions or search is inadmissable.

 

So, if you did say "no", but they continue, DO NOT resist.

 

Like I said, there are some grey areas here, and it's getting late in my work 'day', so I'm tired, and I haven't read Terry v. Ohio lately, but I think I got most of that right.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. Oh, and as always, anything you read on the net is a poor substitute for a proper legal opinion from lawyers or past case rulings.

 

Please note my highlighting. The vast majority of what you posted is incorrect. The only thing you did get right was the advice to not resist.

 

If a police officer asks you for ID, you do have to provide it. And they do not need your consent for a patdown for safety, and anything they find that you shouldn't have had on you will be admissable.

[+Happy Humphrey]

From time to time we will attract the attention of the forces of law and order. In their eyes that box we just found/hid could contain a weapon, a drugs stash, stolen goods or explosives. It is certainly suspicious that we went to an unusual place and tried to make sure that we were not observed. Since volleyball players, chess players, and hikers do none of these things, we can expect more police attention than they do because by our behaviour we brought it on ourselves.

Yes, in practice we may well attract the attention of a police officer or over-zealous security guard. But the point is that we (in Britain, at least) are not obliged to offer any ID papers or convincing explanation for our legitimate and legal behaviour. Not yet, anyway!

 

I'm relieved that, in their country, krisandmel are also free to behave in an inoffensive, legal (though slightly unorthodox) fashion in public without being regarded as criminals.

 

It appears to me that a lot of the world's problems are caused by people NOT minding their own business, and that particularly includes officials with our "welfare at heart".

[+briansnat]

One option is to join the National Map Corps. Once accepted you get an offical ID issued by the US Department of the Interior and its your job to be wandering around aimlessly with a GPS.

[+sbell111]

Please note my highlighting. The vast majority of what you posted is incorrect. The only thing you did get right was the advice to not resist.

 

If a police officer asks you for ID, you do have to provide it. And they do not need your consent for a patdown for safety, and anything they find that you shouldn't have had on you will be admissable.

Actually, in nearly any situation that I would find myself in while I am walking about geocaching, you are incorrect. Please see United States v Drayton (153 L Ed 2d 242 (2002) U.S. Supreme Court.

 

EDITed to add case law.

Edited August 31, 2006 by sbell111

[+Happy Humphrey]

Please note my highlighting. The vast majority of what you posted is incorrect. The only thing you did get right was the advice to not resist.

 

If a police officer asks you for ID, you do have to provide it. And they do not need your consent for a patdown for safety, and anything they find that you shouldn't have had on you will be admissable.

Actually, in nearly any situation that I would find myself in while I am walking about geocaching, you are incorrect.

Crikey! I hope you're right. Clothahump is living in a police state. I'd be scared to walk the streets...

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to get political, but it's interesting that people have such different views about this.

[+krisandmel]

I am 110% behind you in protecting our rights, this is not a personal attack on you, we are probably a lot alike, but think of it from the Police officers view, think of the big picture. We are a bit sneaky, are we not?

 

I understand your point, I think, but to really "think of the big picture" you ought to surrender all your personal and human rights.

If you are merely part of a group, like a drop of water in the sea, and have no individuality, that would be fine.

 

Another slant on the big picture, is that if you give up your Rights or the protection of your Rights in seemingly harmless small situations, it erodes the foundation of all your Rights.

How's that for big picture?

 

Oh, and I'm not an expert in case law, but as I understand Terry v. Ohio and other findings, if you are approached by an officer and he asks if he can talk to you, and you say "no", he has to have the criteria to show he can make a lawful Terry Stop.

If he has no probably cause to believe you are criminal, and just acting on a hunch or a vibe, it is unlawful to further question and/or detain you.

 

However, if the same officer says "hey, can I ask you a few questions" and like most polite people you reply "sure", you have just given the officer permission to frisk you to protect his safety.

Weapons would then be admissable, but other evidence of criminal activity may or may not be, depending on the opinion of the court.

 

This is getting very off the main topic, about a geocaching ID.

I wouldn't make any badge or card claiming "official geocacher" status, as it is pretty easy to make any document you want with a laser printer.

In my cachepack I keep some of those brochures from Geocaching U.

If the brochure, my GPSr, the swag, the printed listings and the smile on my face can't explain away my activity, there is seriously something wrong.

 

(Again, don't rely on my amateur legal opinion, only a lawyer you are paying can give you proper counsel.)

-Kris

[+krisandmel]

... Although incorrectly attributed directly to Ben Franklin, this quote nevertheless is quite significant:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ...

Actually, Ben Franklin did write that on November 11, 1755. The cool thing about Ben Franklin, is that he kept really good notes. It's true that Franklin and others during the Revolution expressed similar variations of that quote.

 

I thought he did too, but according to Wikiquote:

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania

 

I only found that today. Like every wiki-entry, there is some risk of inaccuracy, so I still wouldn't say for sure who said it first.

 

Not arguing with you, just pointing you to my reference.

 

-K

[Mustcache]

Just show 'em your birthmark, I say.

 

[+krisandmel]

As far as I know, if you are just walking around (that is, not operating a motor vehicle on public roads) you don't have to give you ID to anyone, police officers included.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Oh, and as always, anything you read on the net is a poor substitute for a proper legal opinion from lawyers or past case rulings.

 

Please note my highlighting. The vast majority of what you posted is incorrect. The only thing you did get right was the advice to not resist.

 

If a police officer asks you for ID, you do have to provide it. And they do not need your consent for a patdown for safety, and anything they find that you shouldn't have had on you will be admissable.

 

It would be nice if you cited your source on this. Where's the case law?

Who says you must hand over ID when on foot? Any lawyers or LEO's here that could answer that?

 

And according to you, if you must submit to a patdown for 'safety' and anything found is chargeable and admissable, wouldn't that mean there is no such thing as unlawful search and seizure?

 

Please clarify your statements.

-K

[+Team Torque]

 

And according to you, if you must submit to a patdown for 'safety' and anything found is chargeable and admissable, wouldn't that mean there is no such thing as unlawful search and seizure?

 

 

I am afraid he is right. Ever watch cops? When Reagan declared a "War on Drugs" what we got was a war on the 4th amendment. The Right Wing Supreme Court decided that as long as the officer was working in "good faith" he could use illegally seized evidence in court. 50% of people who have cash seized in Florida are never charged with any crime and lose their cash. The average cost to fight a forfeiture case in Florida is $30,000. Not likely you will try to get your $5000 in vacation money back (source of Florida stats is US Department of Justice.)

[+briansnat]

 

And according to you, if you must submit to a patdown for 'safety' and anything found is chargeable and admissable, wouldn't that mean there is no such thing as unlawful search and seizure?

 

 

I am afraid he is right. Ever watch cops? When Reagan declared a "War on Drugs" what we got was a war on the 4th amendment. The Right Wing Supreme Court decided that as long as the officer was working in "good faith" he could use illegally seized evidence in court. 50% of people who have cash seized in Florida are never charged with any crime and lose their cash. The average cost to fight a forfeiture case in Florida is $30,000. Not likely you will try to get your $5000 in vacation money back (source of Florida stats is US Department of Justice.)

 

The Burger court was a "right wing" court? Massachusetts v. Sheppard was a 7-2 decision with Lewis Powell, Sandra O'Connor, Byron White, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens voting with the majority. Yeah, real bunch of right wingers there .

[+NatureGuy360]

Focusing back on the original post in reference to a security guard... A security guard can only provide security for the geographical area that is owned by the property owner who commissioned him.

 

Since Geocaching guidelines require permission from the property owner to have a Geocache placed there then theoretically you should never be questioned by any security guards on that property.

 

Encountering a law enforcement officer is of course an exception to this rule. Try to keep in mind though that their are different laws for different states. So it's important not to get overly specific on exactly what legal action can always or cannot always be taken.

 

Back to the topic at hand... I think a Geocacher membership card is a nice idea as long as it's not used as a quick get out of trouble for free card.

 

Many notable organizations provide membership cards and I think it's a great way to identify yourself as a member of the Geocaching community. Nothing more and nothing less.

[+Waynelipp]

I was just stopped by a police officer the other day trying to find a cache on top of a "Smokey the bear forest fire sign". I had to spend 15 minutes of the rest of the day explaining Geocaching to him. They should know.

[+sbell111]

I thought he did too, but according to Wikiquote:

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania

I'm not a big fan of wiki, but I suspect that we are both correct. He certainly wrote the statement in his 11/11/1755 letter. But it is also true that the sentiment was a somewhat popular one of the period, so he may have taken the position that it wasn't 'his' because it wasn't an original work.

[+sbell111]

...Encountering a law enforcement officer is of course an exception to this rule. Try to keep in mind though that their are different laws for different states. So it's important not to get overly specific on exactly what legal action can always or cannot always be taken. ...

That is not really true. They have to follow the Constitution, no matter what state they are in. (International cachers are on their own.)

[+geognerd]

One option is to join the National Map Corps. Once accepted you get an offical ID issued by the US Department of the Interior and its your job to be wandering around aimlessly with a GPS.

But the ID card isn't any more official-looking than something I could make on my home PC and printer. In fact, my ID number and name are handwritten on the card. Not likely to impress law enforcement.

[janx]

Krisandmel,

Wow! that certainly is an interesting (and dangerous) interpretation of your rights! ...

I'll just keep it simple, since this is not the topic of the thread, and state that I disagree with almost all of your post.

 

I concur with sbell and hog. Kris's attitude is an aggressive stance to take to defend your rights. Aggression should only be used when faced with aggression (and then Sun Tzu might have some wisdom about that too).

 

You have more to gain by explaining yourself to the officer (and explaining the activity), than by being curt with the officer. In fact, every officer I know has alarm bells that go off when dealing with curt people. Officer Friendly can quickly turn into Officer Kranky specifically because he didn't like your attitude (and I have had cops tell me specifically that they do this). The best way to get along with people and get to do what you want to do (maintain your rights unmolested) is to understand the motivations, attitude and philosophy of the people you're doing with, and to work through them in the least harmful way.

 

Talking to to the cop in a friendly tone with a "hi, I'm geocaching. We're trying to find a hidden cache. I got a brochure that explains it, and if you want I can show you how it works" will get you what you want (back to geocaching) a lot easier than being brusk and getting stuffed into a squad car. You haven't defended anything, you've made a jerk of yourself and gotten yourself in the back of a cop car. Not smart.

[+sbell111]

Krisandmel,

Wow! that certainly is an interesting (and dangerous) interpretation of your rights! ...

I'll just keep it simple, since this is not the topic of the thread, and state that I disagree with almost all of your post.

 

I concur with sbell and hog. Kris's attitude is an aggressive stance to take to defend your rights. Aggression should only be used when faced with aggression (and then Sun Tzu might have some wisdom about that too). ...

Ummm....

 

I agreed with Krisandmel (mostly) and disagreed with Hogosha (mostly). I assumed that was clear when I posted that 'I disagree with almost all of your post' to Hogosha and 'I agree with most of your post' to Krisandmel.

Edited September 1, 2006 by sbell111

[Hogosha]

Let me start off by saying that I, 1, don't believe that anyone's rights should be violated, even in the most minute way. And 2- I don't believe anyone should give up any of their rights, even the smallest ones.

 

Furthermore, the requirement of having to produce Identification upon request of a Law Enforcement Agent, varies from state to state. Know your state and local laws.

 

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I need to clarify some things in regards to our rights, not just as Geocachers, but as citizens, and if we can just "walk away" from a Police Officer when stopped.

 

A Police Officer may ask ANYONE at ANYTIME what there name is, and an explanation of his/her conduct. This is called "Common-law right of inquiry". You may decline. If you agree, that does not automatically give them the right to search you, that's just absurd.

 

But again, I must reiterate, as Geocachers, we are not just standing around, or walking along minding our own business. Chances are we are going out of our way to be "Stealthy", going to unusual places to look for little boxes, etc., etc.

 

SCENARIO:

Police Officer gets a call that some person is creeping around in the woods right next to this playground where small children are playing. He is doing something with some military-looking box. You get the picture.

 

Furthermore, a Police Officer does not need to prove to YOU if he has enough Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause to detain you, he has to prove that to the courts.

 

The fact of the matter is, chances are highly probable your rights are NOT being violated, and the Police Officers actions are perfectly legal, remember they go through a LOT more training than just getting legal advice off of online forums.

 

The BEST way to protect your rights, is to know and fully understand them. And if you disagree with a specific law or case ruling, lobby your state and local government to have it changed.

[+sbell111]

Rather than go through a long post explaining why I still don't agree with you, let me just say that 1) In general, I don't appear suspicious when I cache. 2) People are quite unlikely to spot me with the cache at most cache sites, 3) I almost certainly wouldn't be any where nearby by the time an LEO arrives, and 4) if he questions me based on some sketchy 'acting suspicious' complaint, he still would not have enough to go on to detain me for questioning. My unwillingness to hang out and play twenty questions with him would not give him further ability to detain me further or arrest me.

Edited September 1, 2006 by sbell111

[+TeamHarrison]

You get more with sugar than you do with salt. Being mostly an optimist, I just assume that the Officer in question is doing exactly what my tax dollars pay him to do and looking out for public safety.

 

I recommend being very friendly and open. Say hello and address the officer's concerns and they will likely be on their way in no time. I like the recommendation of having the Geocaching explanation pamphlet/cards to hand out. Nothing wrong with recruiting others into this wholesome activity!

 

In the commision of doing the above, you can also start asking all kinds of "fan-boy" questions. "Hey, what kind of gun is that?" "Have you ever shot somebody?" "How fast does your car go?" "Can you turn on the siren?" They're usually quick to get out of there if you ask questions like that with the ol' kid on Christmas look in your eye!

 

On a more serious and final note, in my brief Geocaching history, we've had one officer approach us as we searched out a micro in the wooded area of a Target store's parking area. The officer rolled down the window and asked if everything was OK. I replied that it was and thanked them. She rolled right off. See my first paragraph...

[Hogosha]

Rather than go through a long post explaining why I still don't agree with you, let me just say that 1) In general, I don't appear suspicious when I cache. 2) People are quite unlikely to spot me with the cache at most cache sites, 3) I almost certainly wouldn't be any where nearby by the time an LEO arrives, and 4) if he questions me based on some sketchy 'acting suspicious' complaint, he still would not have enough to go on to detain me for questioning. My unwillingness to hang out and play twenty questions with him would not give him further ability to detain me further or arrest me.

 

Rather than go through another long post to explain to you further why you are wrong, I suggest you ask some Police Officers, Lawyers, and th ACLU. Just because you disagree, does not make you right.

[janx]

However, if the same officer says "hey, can I ask you a few questions" and like most polite people you reply "sure", you have just given the officer permission to frisk you to protect his safety.

Weapons would then be admissable, but other evidence of criminal activity may or may not be, depending on the opinion of the court.

 

Where do you have any proof of this being a law anywhere? It makes no logical sense.

 

A request to interrogate is not the same as a request to search. Therefore, saying yes to "may I ask you some questions" does not mean "and you can pat me down, too."

 

When I said I agree with sbell, I meant his statement that your comments were interesing and dangerous.

 

You seem to have a line of thought that will lead to conflict and confrontation. I argue that no confrontation is needed. Explaining yourself to a cop in a public place is not an abridgement of your rights. The cop is there to secure the place. If he doesn't know what you're doing, then he can't very well do his job. And by "know what you're doing" I mean it in a sense of if you're actions are odd (to him) he needs to know if your actions are dangerous.

 

The fact of life is this: if you're not nice to people who can make your future unpleasant, then they will likely make your future unpleasant. This means being rude to customer service reps, sales reps, cops, waitresses all of whom in some fashion can cause you trouble (spit in food, take you downtown, etc). This isn't an issue of consitutional rights. It's a matter of commonsense. You don't aggravate other people unless you are a sociopath.

 

If you think you have a consitutional right to be evasive with a police officer, then you have a consitutional duty to get anal probed for drugs when they haul you in.

 

I'm all for not surrendering your liberties. It's a matter of knowing what's a liberty, and what's a courtesy.

[+ranger-rob]

 

Please note my highlighting. The vast majority of what you posted is incorrect. The only thing you did get right was the advice to not resist.

 

If a police officer asks you for ID, you do have to provide it. And they do not need your consent for a patdown for safety, and anything they find that you shouldn't have had on you will be admissable.

 

Ummm... I think that may be particular to Texas. In Florida a police officer (deputy/trooper/etc) cannot demand ID and or perform a physical search of a person without consent unless there is sufficient probable cause. To do so may cause the officer to be guilty of simple assult (among other things).

 

Regardless, many common geocaching practices provide plenty of "sufficient probable cause" and the term "sufficient probable cause" is intentionally vague. Handing a brochure over to "Officer Friendly" and complying with instructions will probably make things go a lot easier (and faster) on all parties involved.

 

Edit: Addition - A "security guard" uniformed or not, has no authority over and above a private citizen. They usually are acting as the designated representative of the land owner or property manager in his/her absence though and that does give certain rights of access (specific to the state) .

Edited September 1, 2006 by ranger-rob

[+krisandmel]

JANX

Okay, first of all, I never indicated or advocated curtness or aggression towards police officers.

What are you, nuts???

That's a very quick way to not only see the back of a squad, it's a great way to get an obstruction or resisting charge, and you will see jailbars for that behavior.

 

You seem to indicate that the only way to be nice or civil is to agree with authorities and consent to anything at the drop of a hat.

That's being passive, not friendly.

 

It is not aggressive or curt to politely decline further voluntary contact with law enforcement.

 

Asking the officer "why am I being stopped" and "am I free to go" are valid questions that if posed properly shouldn't come across as snotty or hostile.

 

I'm not looking to tie up the officer's time and the resources of the public; I just want to be on my way.

 

If all of my posts in this topic were read, it would be clear I stated I would state that I was geocaching, and then I would be on my way.

I wouldn't turn, or run, or shout, or any insane thing like that.

Each situation would dictate slightly different statements, but it would probably be something like "Oh, hello, I'm geocaching. Nice day for it, huh? Well, see you later."

How is that curt or aggressive?

 

Here's a tip: If an officer is asking if he can search you or your backpack, he doesn't have probable cause.

If he did, he wouldn't ask, he would just do it.

 

You want references? Great!

Look here:

FlexYourRights

When Can Police Search Me?

Why not consent if I'm not doing wrong?

When must I show ID?

 

If you need more references, use google and type in "consent to search" and "pedestrian stop".

 

And another thing, wandering around in the woods or parks looking under logs and in nooks & crannies is not suspicious behavior, it's geocaching behavior.

Any officer worth his/her badge should have at least heard of geocaching and be familiar with the profile of a 'cacher.

You know: a GPSr, probably some cache pages or a PDA with cache data, maybe a backpack or fannypack, a hiking staff maybe, and usually a big smile.

 

So to the little old lady that called it in, it appears suspicious, but then the officer arrives and you state you are geocaching and unless there was just a burglary or something nearby in the preceding hour or two, your statement that you are geocaching is plenty of explanation.

 

Behavior is only suspicious when it does not jive with your actions or the setting.

 

Someone walking in the woods with a rifle in April is suspicious, someone walking the woods with a rifle in September is not.

 

Someone hopping around on a tennis court swinging a baseball bat around at imaginary balls is suspicious, someone hopping around a court hitting a tennis ball with a racket is not.

 

Therefore, someone snooping around in public areas with a GPSr is not necessarily suspicious behavior, and unless additional behavior of yours contradicted your statement to officers that you are geocaching, there should be no further need for investigation.

 

I don't want to be a d!ck to officers; but I won't just bend over and take it anytime I am asked to surrender my rights.

Sure, there are times I've allowed an officer to search my person and my vehicle, and there are times I've politely declined the request to allow a search.

I was not curt or aggressive, and I was on my way within minutes.

 

Settle down; saying "no" is not the same as shouting "hell no".

-K

 

Edited to add:

PS: I am not trying to fight with you Janx, I just don't like being told that I'm advocate rudeness or aggression!

Especially in cases where, as you put it very well, the people you are dealing with have the capacity to make your future unpleasant.

I guess I simply disagree with your statement that refusing a search or declining to answer more questions is automatically rude and uncalled for.

Tone of voice and choice of words would of course make a huge difference in the officer's response to your refusal.

Similarily, the lack of tone of voice and absent body language in written statements can cause confusion or misconveyance of the author's intent or emotion. (Like on online forums such as this.)

Again, I'm not fighting with you, I enjoy reasonable discussion and it's very interesting reading all points of view on this subject.

I also will again mention that I'm not a Constitutional law expert and I do not pretend to know all about this field, and I am receptive to change as long as the information is presented respectfully and there are sources to back it up.

Peace, -Kris

Edited September 1, 2006 by krisandmel