Jump to content

"Private Property" sign...Pass or don't?


Recommended Posts

Could very well be that after the cache owner "blows you off" or simply doesn't bother to reply and then the cache subsequently gets archived, the cache owner gets a big burr in his saddle for you even if perhaps you were NOT the one who went to the reviewer.

 

Could very well be that you have no way of knowing whether a particular cache owner is a mature adult or a cry baby.

 

Could very well be that the cache owner's attitude is "it's just a game" or his attitude is "my caches are the most important things in the world to me and I'd rather have a good switchin' than have somebody indicate that my cache ain't the best thing since cinnamon toast on sliced bread."

 

and that's when I'd go to a reviewer. But not before.

 

Again, in all my experiences of dealing with other cachers, I've never had a situation like you describe.

Link to comment

" I thought that maybe the "Private Property" announcement might mean something but it doesn't follow the code if that is what it was intended to do. The point is that you need to check the local laws when in doubt. I know that checking local laws sounds like "drama" to some of you ;) but that is the prudent thing to do if you are in doubt"

 

In my opinion, civilized behavior requires one to hold oneself to a higher standard then whether something is legal or not. A lot of bad behaviour is still legal. Even if a property is not legally "posted", the question still arises as to whether the owner was trying to convey the message that he did not want people on his property and if so the owner's wishes should be respected.

 

Geocachers should be a aware of what consitutes legal tresspassing in general, but the question is what do you do at the time you arrive at the site. Realistically few will chose to go home or to the library and review local laws, and then return. You either proceed or give up on the cache forever.

 

In my opinion for the cache is question, the owner was trying to prohibit just certain activities and if he/she wanted to could have just as easily had a blanket no tresspassing message, therefore I would have gone ahead. But I think for all caches on private property, the log should clearly state the type of permission obtained (assumed, explicit, etc.). As a Libertarian, I believe public land is a different story, and that I have a basic right to be there (as it is my lnad) and that responsible placement of caches is acceptable. But I will obey all specific rules related to geocaches.

Link to comment

NO!!!!! Private Property is Private Property. To go past this sign means that you ARE trespassing.

If I was to have a posting like that on my property and someone went on to the property. Guess what, I would have the LAW out there to arrest the person and I WOULD prosecute.

Posted Private Property is the same as saying No Trespassing.

 

Guess what, you would lose. In Indiana you have to post it "NO TRESSPASSING" or they aren't tresspassing. They can build a freakin treehouse on your land and you can't prosecute them unless it's posted "NO TRESSPASSING"

Been there tried that.

In South Carolina, it states that you have to be warned first before it is considered trespassing. A sign can serve as the first warning. It can be verbal--as in you call the cops and you tell the offender to leave. The officer is a witness of the first warning. I suppose a neutral third party could do, I dunno. If they return, they are trespassing.

 

If this was in SC I wouldn't see an issue unless the cache forced you to be in the water. It appears to be a liability issue similar to being on railway tracks.

 

EDIT TO ADD: In fact, IIRC, in my research with "The Most Recent Unpleasantness" I seem to remember the law prohibits all sorts of activities on private property without permission--stuff like harvesting flowers and plants, wildlife, and some other stuff. It doesn't say anything about being on the property. This tells me simply being on the property is okay unless specified otherwise.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Guess what, you would lose. In Indiana you have to post it "NO TRESSPASSING" or they aren't tresspassing. They can build a freakin treehouse on your land and you can't prosecute them unless it's posted "NO TRESSPASSING"

Been there tried that.

In South Carolina, it states that you have to be warned first before it is considered trespassing. A sign can serve as the first warning. It can be verbal--as in you call the cops and you tell the offender to leave. The officer is a witness of the first warning. I suppose a neutral third party could do, I dunno. If they return, they are trespassing.

...

(note: I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV)

I've had many issues with unwanted people on private property. First, I have to ask them to leave. If they don't, I can call L.E. Then, they come out and I speak to them. Then, I have to ask them to leave in the L.E.O's presence. Then, and only if the subject refuses to leave, the L.E.O. can arrest the subject.

Usually, however, the L.E.O. says something like "Let's go outside so we can discuss this." There - subject has left my building.

I would, without much hesitation, go get the cache; especially since it's so near the parking area. If someone objected to my presence, I would apologize, and leave. If the sign had said "No Trespassing," "Keep Out," "Beware the Leopard," "Trespassers will be shot," or the like, that'd be a whole different can o' worms.

Edited by PJPeters
Link to comment

Here's a note I posted on a new cachein my area.

 

Although the area is not posted,at 8:47am this morning I was informed by a Riverside County Deputy Sheriff that this whole area is private property and they don't want any trespassing.

He was sitting at the end of the paved road and waiting for some bike riders to come back to let them know.

So just a warning.

 

Not posted but LEO says no ;)

Link to comment

"In my opinion for the cache is question, the owner was trying to prohibit just certain activities and if he/she wanted to could have just as easily had a blanket no tresspassing message, therefore I would have gone ahead. But I think for all caches on private property, the log should clearly state the type of permission obtained (assumed, explicit, etc.). As a Libertarian, I believe public land is a different story, and that I have a basic right to be there (as it is my lnad) and that responsible placement of caches is acceptable. But I will obey all specific rules related to geocaches.

I agree completely, and I consider myself an Independent. (No party affiliation, as I believe party politics are one of our biggest problems today)

 

For the OP, the sign mentions specific activities, both related to the canal. The lack of a fence, wording of the sign, and well used pathway indicate other usage is most likely acceptable.

 

But who wants to argue with a LEO not me I'll probably go back for it and plead ignorance since it wasn't posted ;)

If not posted, this is the way to handle the situation.

Link to comment

If the sign was on a gate with any sort of fence/boundary-marker saying "Private Property" then I wouldn't go past it as I would consider it to mean, don't go past this point or your trespassing.

The photo looks fairly unagressive so I would calmly walk and look around. I would avoid looking stealthy incase an angry land owner came along shouting and then my situation would change and I'd have to politly appologise for mis-understanding.

 

If the cacher didn't want to help with locating the cache, they could include something in the description like "If you spend some time in this woods/area, you should note you are not allowed to go in the water that passes through it" doesn't say it's by the cache.

Or why not use the encryption clue feature? Anyone stopped at the sign can decrypt to see if they've made a mistake.

Link to comment

If the sign was on a gate with any sort of fence/boundary-marker saying "Private Property" then I wouldn't go past it as I would consider it to mean, don't go past this point or your trespassing.

 

 

Typically true and I would agree, BUT, there are some areas around that hunters or other people deem "theirs" and will place out signs and it is indeed public land. If somebody has gone through the trouble and installed a fence then for sure you can bet it is probably private. But then again I know of an instance in the mountains here in Colorado where several land owners have banded together to install a gate with plenty of signs saying "No Trespass" and "Private Road/Property" and it is a public road. They have even gone through the trouble of removing the "Forest Access Road" signs to help hedge their bluff. Their intent is to keep people out who will look at the gate and not question it. By law they cannot impeed traffic nor hinder emergency access by locking or binding a gate.

Link to comment

I have encountered a similar situation here in Colorado myself. When I was sure it was public, I went on through anyway, with no problem. I have seen other places like this in eastern Arizona and southwest New Mexico.

 

VKsnr

Link to comment

NO!!!!! Private Property is Private Property. To go past this sign means that you ARE trespassing.

From a legal perspective, that is absolutely incorrect. My residence is on private property, yet folks frequently knock on my door seeking assistance, assuming I'm not a serial killer because I have a cop car in my driveway. These folks are not trespassing unless, and until, they are told, (either through direct conversation, posting, fencing or cultivation), that they are not allowed to be there. If, after they have been notified, they choose to remain or enter, then they would be trespassing.

 

If I was to have a posting like that on my property and someone went on to the property. Guess what, I would have the LAW out there to arrest the person and I WOULD prosecute.

You can certainly call THE LAW if you wish, but don't be surprised when they tell you your sign is not enforceable, regardless of your intent to prosecute.

 

Posted Private Property is the same as saying No Trespassing.

Not quite. "Posted" means the same thing as "No Trespassing". "Private Property" does not.

 

Back on topic: It depends. If something about the location made me uncomfortable, I'd probably skip it, and come back if some research resolved my concerns. The sign appears to have been built by G.C.I.D., AKA: the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, who historically, seem to have no problems conveying the message they wish to convey. Seems like, if they wanted you to stay out, they would simply say so.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...