Not quite a rant: Caches right next to private property

[+cimawr]

This isn't exactly a rant, but....

 

I really have to wonder what people are thinking when they place caches within 0-50 feet of private houses WITHOUT the residents of the homes having any knowlege of what's going on, and in circumstances where cache-seekers will either look extremely suspicious to the homeowners, or may end up in someone's back yard.

 

One local cache is situated such that the posted coordinates put searchers literally on the property lines of private homes, and about 30-50 feet from two of the houses. Yes, there's a chainlink fence, but it doesn't negate the fact that what the homeowners see is people poking around in a place where there's no reason for anyone to be, and which allows people to overlook areas where the homeowners have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I found myself fairly quickly being scrutinized by what I believe was a cop in an unmarked car, even though I had already moved away from the area, feeling uncomfortable with the situation.

 

And one I looked at yesterday is placed on a little pocket of land which is apparently the tail end of park property, but where there is NO dividing line between what's public property and the back yards of two homes. One place my GPSr pointed me was in a spot where it was not at all clear whether the potential hide spot was private or public, and another potential hide spot (a stump) IS, I believe, actually in the back yard; both places are 40 feet or less from the home's back deck. I didn't search either of them.

I don't think there was anyone home - I wouldn't have searched even in what I was sure was the public area if I thought there was - but that spot seems like trouble waiting to happen, especially if someone goes there after dark.

 

And to be clear, the homes in both cases are in quiet suburban areas, and the "public" areas aren't ones where you would or should normally see foot traffic. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think those sort of hides are appropriate.

[+sbell111]

I don't have a huge problem with caches being placed there. I might not enjoy the find, but others might.

 

BTW, I believe that if someone wants a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in their yard, they should choose a privacy fence, rather than chain link. Chain link fences don't block the view that much and I'm not of a mind to look away just because I see one.

[+briansnat]

I agree that its stupid, but its not against the guidelines. I just pass on these kinds of caches.

 

They tend to not last very long anyways, as the homeowners get suspicious of a parade of strangers prowling their neighboorhood and will remove the container as soon as they figure out what is going on.

[+StarBrand]

The only ones I have seen like that tend to be houses next to parks. As Briansnat says - if placed that way - they won't probably last very long.

[+Mule Ears]

Yep, this is a cache-placement error we've seen a few times. Sure, the cache is technically in the park, but the fine points of property ownership don't impress the neighbors or their dogs.

 

I'm hoping such placements are unintentional. I'd hate to think that anyone would deliberately choose locations where nosey neighbors and noisy dogs present 'challenges.'

[+cimawr]

I don't have a huge problem with caches being placed there. I might not enjoy the find, but others might.

 

BTW, I believe that if someone wants a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in their yard, they should choose a privacy fence, rather than chain link. Chain link fences don't block the view that much and I'm not of a mind to look away just because I see one.

 

The fence wasn't put up by the homeowners; it belongs to the private museum on the grounds of which the cache is placed (almost certainly without the permission of the museum). The area is the back corner of the parking lot, and there are trees planted to give the homeowners privacy. The coordinates take cache seekers *behind* the trees, on a slope overlooking the homes.

If the homes bordered a public park, or the areas visible from the hide site were also visible from the street (they're not), I would agree with you. However, that's not the case - the area that cachers are taken to by the posted coordinates is NOT a public area, and not a place where anyone would normally go.

 

In any case, the fence itself is immaterial to "reasonable expectation of privacy", which is a term used in privacy laws - most photographers are familiar with it - which may come into play if a geocacher is arrested for being there.

 

"Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:

1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera"

 

Looking into someone's back yard and potentially into their back and side upper story windows (the parking lot is above the ground level of the homes), from a vantage point on private property, can very well be construed as violating their right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in those areas IMO.

 

And in the case of the other cache, if someone goes on to the homeowner's property, there's no question that they'll be trespassing.

 

My reasons for considering those two cache placements somewhat inappropriate is threefold:

 

1, I'm concerned that a cacher may end up arrested or harassed by cops.

2, I'm concerned for the rights of the property owners.

3, I'm concerned for the image of the sport - ticking off local homeowners is NOT good P.R. for geocaching.

 

IOW, to my mind, the problems with those two cache placements are similar to those with placing caches on or near schools.

In the case of the first one, IMO the problems could be resolved for the most part if the cache hider would correct the coordinates, move the cache to another area of the parking lot that *doesn't* border private homes, and/or note on the web page that the cache is not on the fence line & please respect privacy.

In the case of the second, noting on the page that there are private homes nearby, please be careful to remain on public property, would probably suffice... as would moving the cache to one of the public areas where the property lines ARE delineated by fences.

 

Me, personally, I would have appreciated having the information that the caches are near private homes up front.

Edited October 3, 2006 by cimawr

[+briansnat]

In any case, the fence itself is immaterial to "reasonable expectation of privacy", which is a term used in privacy laws - most photographers are familiar with it - which may come into play if a geocacher is arrested for being there.

 

"Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:

1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera"

 

Looking into someone's back yard and potentially into their back and side upper story windows (the parking lot is above the ground level of the homes), from a vantage point on private property, can very well be construed as violating their right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in those areas IMO.

 

And in the case of the other cache, if someone goes on to the homeowner's property, there's no question that they'll be trespassing.

 

Unless the geocacher is peering into windows, I don't think he'd be any more subject to arrest for these reasons than any other passerby. Still, I agree that these places are poor choices for a cache, partly for your concern #3 and partly because there is nothing of interest in most of these places.

Edited October 3, 2006 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

The cache is in the parking lot of a museum? Now I really don't have a problem with it. The neighbors do not have any expectation of privacy from being viewed from a parking lot.

[+BlueDeuce]

Sometimes it is done correctly.

 

"Don't worry about the surrounding homes, they are aware this cache is here and have been alerted there may be some caching going on." GCQBNE

[+cimawr]

Yep, this is a cache-placement error we've seen a few times. Sure, the cache is technically in the park, but the fine points of property ownership don't impress the neighbors or their dogs.

 

I'm hoping such placements are unintentional. I'd hate to think that anyone would deliberately choose locations where nosey neighbors and noisy dogs present 'challenges.'

 

I'm sure it wasn't, in either case. The hider of the museum cache had the good intentions of making people aware of a little-known museum, he just didn't, IMO, sufficiently consider where GPS bounce (and his own unfortunate bad coordinates) might put people. In that location, coordinates 50 feet off make a BIG difference.

The second one, being a micro, isn't so much of an issue if the actual location is where I think it is; my concern there is more stupid cachers blindly following the GPS into somebody's yard than anything else, although I still think a better choice would have been on the other side of the street where the area of public property is more clearly delineated.

Edited October 3, 2006 by cimawr

[+sbell111]

I think you should skip those caches. You probably won't enjoy them.

[+cimawr]

The cache is in the parking lot of a museum? Now I really don't have a problem with it. The neighbors do not have any expectation of privacy from being viewed from a parking lot.

 

In this case, yes, they do. If you're ON THE PARKING LOT, you can't see into the yards - you can glimpse that there are homes back there, but not see into the yards.

Please re-read my description of the location; you'll see that I said there are trees - I didn't specify, but they are thick evergreens - planted to screen the homes, and cachers are going behind that screen.

[+sbell111]

The cache is in the parking lot of a museum? Now I really don't have a problem with it. The neighbors do not have any expectation of privacy from being viewed from a parking lot.

 

In this case, yes, they do. If you're ON THE PARKING LOT, you can't see into the yards - you can glimpse that there are homes back there, but not see into the yards.

Please re-read my description of the location; you'll see that I said there are trees - I didn't specify, but they are thick evergreens - planted to screen the homes, and cachers are going behind that screen.

If the trees are on museum property and you are still across a fence from the homes, I don't see what the big deal is.

[+cimawr]

I think you should skip those caches. You probably won't enjoy them.

 

I've been trying to avoid return snarkiness to your snarky posts, but I have to ask - did you READ what I wrote, or did you just skim my posts and give knee-jerk reactions devoid of any real comprehension?

 

READING my posts would have made it clear that

A. I would most likely have skipped at least the first cache IF I had known up front where the coordinates would take me (it wasn't obvious even from the parking lot, as I've already said)

B. that I did abort my search quickly once I realized where they had taken me and

C. that even so, I found myself being scrutinized by cops as I left.

 

READING my posts would also make it clear that I'm not so much concerned about my own personal experiences as I am about the possible negative impact to geocaching due to cache placement bothering homeowners, and the potential for other cachers being arrested or harassed by police.

Edited October 3, 2006 by cimawr

[+sbell111]

I think you should skip those caches. You probably won't enjoy them.

I've been trying to avoid return snarkiness to your snarky posts, but I have to ask - did you READ what I wrote, or did you just skim my posts and give knee-jerk reactions devoid of any real comprehension? ...

I both read what you wrote and gave knee-jerk reactions.

 

The fact is, I can't tell exactly what you are asking for. Would you like there to be a guideline that forbids any caches within 500 feet of private property? No thanks.

 

If you arrive at a cache location that you don't like, leave. If you haven't broken any laws, you won't get arrested. If the police question you, answer them truthfully and go on with your life.

 

Problem solved.

Edited October 3, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

You might also go after caches with a higher terrain rating.

[+cimawr]

 

If the trees are on museum property and you are still across a fence from the homes, I don't see what the big deal is.

 

Rather obviously, whoever called the police doesn't agree with you. It also seems obvious that you're more interested in picking a fight than anything else, so I'm about done with replying to you.

[+sbell111]

Absent only searching for wilderness caches, I don't know what to tell you that you will accept.

 

When searching for urban caches, we risk being spotted. We try not to be to the best of our ability, but it happens. If this makes you uncomfortable or you do not ever want to explain to a LEO what you are doing, only go after caches that are far off-trail.

[Clan Riffster]

"Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:

1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera"

 

Looking into someone's back yard and potentially into their back and side upper story windows (the parking lot is above the ground level of the homes), from a vantage point on private property, can very well be construed as violating their right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in those areas IMO.

I think you're stretching Prosser's interpretation to cover your own beliefs. If someone can stand on one lot, and see into another lot, without using any aids, (ladders/binoculars/etc), they are not violating any privacy laws. As you describe it, the cacher would be in a location he/she's allowed to be in, engaging in a presumably lawful activity. The homeowner knows where their property lines are, and should be familiar with the surrounding properties. They have the option of taking steps to prevent casual observers from seeing what happens in their yard, and apparently have chosen not to do so, judging by the lack of privacy fencing.

 

That being said, I agree that it's a bad cache location. I wouldn't hunt for it.

[+cimawr]

 

The fact is, I can't tell exactly what you are asking for. Would you like there to be a guideline that forbids any caches within 500 feet of private property? No thanks.

 

I neither said nor implied that I was "asking for" anything. Nor did I say or imply that I felt there should be any such written guideline.... although my concerns are pretty much covered by :

 

"For all cache types please be sensible when choosing your location for cache placement. Please be aware of what may be a perceived to a non geocacher as dangerous or questionable behavior."

 

At any rate, perhaps you should take note of the fact that I posted under "General Geocaching DISCUSSIONS"? Or that everyone else in the thread DISCUSSED the concerns I had (most of them at least partially agreeing) rather than going on the attack?

 

 

If you arrive at a cache location that you don't like, leave. If you haven't broken any laws, you won't get arrested. If the police question you, answer them truthfully and go on with your life.

 

 

Which is exactly what I did. (Which, again, you would know if you READ what I've already posted.)

 

 

Problem solved.

 

 

For me, personally, yes, the problem is solved for that individual cache. For other cachers who may search for it, the homeowners who aren't happy with their presence, and/or the sport as a whole, no.

 

Which latter - the general, rather than the personal - is, as I've already clearly stated, my concern with that sort of placement. The point of discussing it in here is to get other people's opinions, to vent my feelings on the issue, and possibly to help others make better decisions when placing caches.

[+sbell111]

For me, personally, yes, the problem is solved for that individual cache. For other cachers who may search for it, the homeowners who aren't happy with their presence, and/or the sport as a whole, no.

 

Which latter - the general, rather than the personal - is, as I've already clearly stated, my concern with that sort of placement. The point of discussing it in here is to get other people's opinions, to vent my feelings on the issue, and possibly to help others make better decisions when placing caches.

I think time would be better spent helping others make better decisions when selecting which caches they would like to hunt.

[+cimawr]

 

As you describe it, the cacher would be in a location he/she's allowed to be in, engaging in a presumably lawful activity.

 

Actually, it's somewhat questionable as to whether cachers are really "allowed to be there". It's private property, I don't think the museum staff know the cache is there, and it's not an area of the museum grounds that any vistor to the museum has any reason to go to (the museum is indoors).

Having said that, again, I wouldn't see any real issue with it if the cache were more of distance from the homes, or if the hider would amend his listing with more accurate coordinates (they're noted in the logs IF you read all the way back, but haven't been changed as far as what people download) and/or a note asking people to be aware of private property.

 

 

The homeowner knows where their property lines are, and should be familiar with the surrounding properties. They have the option of taking steps to prevent casual observers from seeing what happens in their yard, and apparently have chosen not to do so, judging by the lack of privacy fencing.

 

 

The part I've bolded is precisely why this particular location is a problem IMO- the homeowners ARE screened from "casual observers" by the dense trees, which were clearly planted for that purpose. Under normal circumstances, there's no need for additional privacy fence.

People going 20 feet *behind* the privacy screen afforded by the evergreens, onto the hill which overlooks the homes and/or right up to the property lines, aren't really in the category of "casual observers" any longer.

Edited October 3, 2006 by cimawr

[+sbell111]

I guess you wouldn't be happy if someone pointed out that evergreens are often planted in such locations to cut down on noise, not vision.

[+cimawr]

 

I think time would be better spent helping others make better decisions when selecting which caches they would like to hunt.

 

 

So, which part of <this is a condensed paraphrase> "the cache descriptions I'm referring don't allow cachers to make those decisions until they're on site" didn't you understand?

 

How would you suggest anyone make those "better decisions" when the cache listings don't accurately reflect the potential for problems?

[+cimawr]

I guess you wouldn't be happy if someone pointed out that evergreens are often planted in such locations to cut down on noise, not vision.

 

It's immaterial, since that's clearly not the case in this incidence - go back a few posts to the bit where I described both locations as being in "quiet suburban areas". Additionally, the museum has limited days/hours, and that corner of the parking lot is normally deserted.

 

It's also immaterial given that regardless of the REASON the evergreens were planted, they do, in fact, make an effective privacy screen, and therefore - as (ad infinitum, ad nausuem) I have previously stated, the homeowners have no need for additional privacy fence under normal circumstances.

 

And again, clearly the homeowner who called the police would disagree with you.

 

I'm getting the distinct impression that you hold the belief that your right to geocache whereever and whenever you please should over-ride anyone else's rights or concerns. Not a very constructive attitude for the sport in general, IMO.

[Clan Riffster]

It's private property, I don't think the museum staff know the cache is there, and it's not an area of the museum grounds that any vistor to the museum has any reason to go to

Different states have different laws, but in Florida, a business which caters to the general public cannot claim someone is trespassing, simply because that person went to a portion of the property not intended for the public, unless said area is specifically posted. That pretty much snuffs out the "private Property" debate. Unless, of course, there are "Employees Only" signs at the tree line?

 

While I agree, it seem like a monstorously bad place to hide a cache, it's not something I'd get worked up over. Let it go, Brother. That cache will likely get muggled shortly, eliminating your concerns. You can't protect others from their own stupidity.

[+sbell111]

So, which part of <this is a condensed paraphrase> "the cache descriptions I'm referring don't allow cachers to make those decisions until they're on site" didn't you understand?

 

How would you suggest anyone make those "better decisions" when the cache listings don't accurately reflect the potential for problems?

Buy a map.

[+sbell111]

It's immaterial, since that's clearly not the case in this incidence - go back a few posts to the bit where I described both locations as being in "quiet suburban areas". Additionally, the museum has limited days/hours, and that corner of the parking lot is normally deserted.

The parking lot is still normally deserted. Caches just don't get that much traffic, especially after the first week or two.

It's also immaterial given that regardless of the REASON the evergreens were planted, they do, in fact, make an effective privacy screen, and therefore - as (ad infinitum, ad nausuem) I have previously stated, the homeowners have no need for additional privacy fence under normal circumstances.

Isn't geocaching a normal occurance? It is in my mind.

And again, clearly the homeowner who called the police would disagree with you.

So what? A cacher logging that find isn't breaking the law.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you hold the belief that your right to geocache whereever and whenever you please should over-ride anyone else's rights or concerns. Not a very constructive attitude for the sport in general, IMO.

I'm of the belief that my ability to participate in any legal activity should not be infringed on by Gladys Kravitz. Edited October 3, 2006 by sbell111

[+cimawr]

 

Different states have different laws, but in Florida, a business which caters to the general public cannot claim someone is trespassing, simply because that person went to a portion of the property not intended for the public, unless said area is specifically posted.

 

 

Purely out of curiosity, what about when the businesses are closed?

 

 

While I agree, it seem like a monstorously bad place to hide a cache, it's not something I'd get worked up over. Let it go, Brother. That cache will likely get muggled shortly, eliminating your concerns. You can't protect others from their own stupidity.

 

 

Heh. I'm not "worked up" at all, just replying to posts as I go along, and SBell's posts are amusing me more than anything else.

 

I suspect the cache probably *won't* get muggled, since it's in a fairly remote spot as far as where JQP goes, the fence is about 10', and the homeowners most affected would actually have to drive half a mile or more to get to it.

Sounds weird, I know, but they're at the end of a dead end street; to get to the cache spot, they'd have to drive out to a side road, make a left turn, take the side road up to the main road, make another left turn, go along the main road, make a 3rd left turn onto the small side road back to the museum, then left turn into the museum and drive to the back corner of a LARGE parking lot. (IOW, they'd go in a large square.)

Add that to the fact that what causes the problem is people searching where the cache ain't**, I don't think the cache is going anywhere unless and until someone is actually apprehended by the police AND spills the beans.

 

**Again, at least half of the issue is caused because the posted coordinates are apparently inaccurate. I believe the cache is actually up at the tree line, possibly even on the outside of the trees, according to some coordinates I gleaned from reading all the way back through all of the logs (I'd brought them with me) after leaving the initial area. The police arrived at the point when I'd started to look there, and was out of sight of the houses.

 

WRT protecting others from stupidity, you're spot-on.

 

(Oh, and btw, it's "Sister" - although admittedly that may be hard to tell from my "avatar" picture since you can only see half of me. )

Edited October 3, 2006 by cimawr

[+eagletrek]

Totally agree with the OP. You're right on about the placement being stupid. The placement is rude, inconsiderate, etc., etc., etc. Forget the technicalities of the law or ordnances. How about being courteous. You know, follow the "Golden Rule."

 

We've had some cachers in our local area even go as far as to encourage folks to trespass on private property to gather data from a tomb stone for an extra smilely.

 

From reading the forum posts, you can tell that some folks just weren't raised right.

Edited October 3, 2006 by eagletrek

[Clan Riffster]

Purely out of curiosity, what about when the businesses are closed?

If I find someone behind a closed Nextel store at 3:00am, there behavior might lead to them being arrested for loitering & prowling, but not for trespassing. This is strictly for Florida. Other states might be more conservative with their property laws.

Thanx for the avatar clarification, Sister. My eyes are too old to make out anything that small. All I see is a blurry bunch of colors which might be a pooch.

[+cimawr]

 

Forget the technicalities of the law or ordnances. How about being courteous. You know, follow the "Golden Rule."

 

 

BINGO.

 

 

We've had some cachers in our local area even go as far as to encourage folks to trespass on private property to gather data from a tomb stone for an extra smilely.

 

 

Charming...

[+cimawr]

[

If I find someone behind a closed Nextel store at 3:00am, there behavior might lead to them being arrested for loitering & prowling, but not for trespassing. This is strictly for Florida. Other states might be more conservative with their property laws.

 

 

I believe the laws in MD (at least this area of it) are similar, and I suspect that "prowling" is what would apply in the case of the museum cache, depending on the cop and the cacher.

Incidentally, I, personally, am at a lot less risk of such things than many cachers, being a small 40-something female generally accompanied by well-behaved dogs, and not prone to getting belligerent with LEOs. IOW I'm fairly patently Not A Threat.

 

Thanx for the avatar clarification, Sister. My eyes are too old to make out anything that small. All I see is a blurry bunch of colors which might be a pooch.

 

Heh. Yep, that yellowish blur is a pooch - my lurcher, Morag - and the pinkish blur behind her is my legs, running. It's a picture taken at a summertime agility competition; the photographer was focusing on the dog coming out of the tunnel, not on me. (If you're interested in seeing it more clearly, it's also my profile picture. )

[+cimawr]

For those who might be interested... the hider of the second cache (the micro) has updated his listing to make it clear that the cache is NOT on private property; he's also amended his coordinates. Plus, there's a note from another local cacher making it clear that this should be a daylight search.

I believe those adjustments will prevent most potential issues.