Jump to content

Arrested in Texas for Geocaching


condor1

Recommended Posts

My wife and I have had this experience a few times, and it still amazes me that the local officers have no idea what geocaching is. I have printed out local geocaches in my town and submitted them to the local police, and since then there has been very few problems with the law. In New Jersey, the problem seems to be night caching. Remember, just be patient, they are just trying to do their job by keeping the community safe. (even if they should know better.)

Link to comment

My first reaction on reading the OP was that between this

They took me back to Academy Sports where I was interviewed by a police detective. I again explained about geocaching and after they had determined that it was not a bomb but rather a geocache, they took me back to my car.
and this
A few minutes later, they arrested me for Interference with the duties of a public servant.
the cache seeker might have been a little over-enthusiastic in the exercise of his First Amendment rights.
Link to comment

Here is where Interference with the Duties of a Public Servant is a relevant charge:

 

 

Officer dragged, shoots suspect to death

 

KILLEEN - Killeen Police have identified 20-year-old Jarvis Galloway as the driver who was shot and killed by a Killeen officer outside of a club Saturday night.

 

Officer James Plank responded to a disturbance call around 1:45 a.m. at the Spurs Nightclub at 600 W. Elms Road. When he got out of his patrol car to speak with the people, one of the men ran off. A foot chase began but ended when the man jumped through the passenger window of a blue Chevrolet Trailblazer.

 

Plank grabbed the man by the waist when police say Galloway began to accelerate, pinning Plank's arm and dragging him across the parking lot. He was able to free his right arm and with it drew his gun, firing at Galloway before falling to the ground.

 

The Galloway continued his escape, but didn't get far. He hit a parked Nissan Sentra before crashing into several handrails along the steps of the Starlight Club on 3310 S. Fort Hood Street.

 

The wounded driver was taken to the Darnall Army Medical Center where he was pronounced dead at 3:38 a.m. His body will be sent to Dallas for an autopsy. His name was not released as of 2:30 p.m. Saturday.

 

Plank was also taken to the Darnall Army Medical Center. He was treated and released with non-life threatening wounds. The officer has since been placed on administrative leave as is protocol in situations such as these.

 

Tamarcus Gregory Brown was charged with Interference with the Duties of a Public Servant. Mario Lorenzo Jones faces charges of Interference with the Duties of a Public Servant and Possession of Marijuana under 2 ounces. Averweone Darneel Holman, 18 years old, was charged with Fleeing a Police Officer and Possession of Marijuana under 2 ounces.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Clan: Under Texas Code, the arrest occurs upon resrtaint, when the cuffs go on there is an arrest. Again you missed the point, that is why I put the Texas code reference in the post.

 

May be different in Florida, but that was the code of Texas.

 

There is also a common law right of inquiry, which is available to any person law enforcement or not. There is never harm nor foul attached to the common law right of inquiry. For instance, I can ask the guy on the street, What are you doing ? I can not be faulted for that. Under no circumstance could the officer be faulted for using the right of inquiry, and then based on the response he might have been justified in arresting a person, but it does not appear to be the case here. Sounds like someone got caught up in the excitement and did not like the idea of having to deal with the situation.

Link to comment
But let's assume you do get permission. What does that mean?

From a practical standpoint, it means that I, as a cache seeker, can provide any investigating law enforcement officer with contact information for who allowed this cache to be on that property. If I'm walking through a Wally World parking lot, there would be no question about my being allowed to be there. However, if I were in that same parking lot, mucking about under a lamp post kilt, I could certainly have my activities questioned. At that point, it helps to have a reasonable explanation for what I am doing. If I can demonstrate that the store manager allows this game to take place in their parking lot, my explanation will carry more weight.

 

I agree with the spirit of your opinion, but I see some practical pit-falls and pot-holes on the road ahead.

 

Store Managers are often relocated and recirculated from store to store. The guy that gave permission could be in another town, another district or another state. Does Wal-Mart "own" the parking lot? Can the Store Manager give permission for activities in the parking lot?

 

And finally... will the Store Manager even back up the story if faced with a possible PR problem? My experiance with Wal-Mart managers leads to believe that they might deny the whole thing.

Link to comment

Here is the definition from the indiana state police handbook.

 

9.02.010 Obstructing a law enforcement officer.

 

A. A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if he or she wilfully hinders, delays or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

 

B. “Law enforcement officer” means any general authority, limited authority or specially commissioned peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020 and other public officers who are responsibility for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.

 

C. Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor. (Ord. 97-844 § 19, 1997: Ord. 453 § 3, 1982)

 

for anyone who is kinda confused. We haven't had any problem with the police. kinda nervous about the first time we are tho. It will be kinda wierd to call mom and dad and say that I need them to pick me up from jail because I got arrested geocaching.

Link to comment

Or, conversely, maybe it will get the attention of the seekers and they will stop looking in places were there is a really good chance that it was placed without permission. Telling yourself "it got published so surely it must be okay" only goes so far.

 

I have seen caches placed behind fences on property that is posted with no trespassing signs -- at least in that situation if you choose to go for it you may have some idea of the possible problems. Its a lot easier to ignore potential problems with the countless LPC hides, hangers, or magnetic key containers in parking lots on private property throughout the country. Some of the caches, like the one made from pvc pipe that I found last week in a bush in a transit parking lot, very near to the transit police station, might raise particular suspicions but we had no way of knowing what the container was until it was in our hands.

 

Normally, when I am asked what I am doing, I tell them about high-tech gps treasure hunts and that is that. And normally I think I can handle the situation, such as when a person told me I was on private property and they did not want a cache there. An explanation of the game, a thousand Mea Culpas, and the remedy of making sure the cache is either removed or archived generally go a long way.

 

But in this case, there was a perfect storm. A passerby thought the cache seeker may have been placing a pipe bomb. In some cases, they have called in the bomb squad after someone has observed a cache seeker replacing the container. Here the officer tracked down the seeker and brought him back to investigate and then formally "arrested" him after determining that the container was a cache.

 

While "interference with public duties" seems to be kind of a catch-all charge when an officer in Texas does not like someone, I would not reasonably anticipate that I would be arrested for acting with criminal negligence by interrupting, disrupting, impeding, or otherwise interfering with the official performance of one's duties. (Texas Penal Code, section 38.15.)

 

I have no way of knowing what happened between the officer and the seeker, but the ubiquitous hide on private property that is open to public access seems to be a firmly established part of the game -- people will continue to hide them with or without express permission, people will seek them, and things will sometimes escalate.

 

In this case, the officer investigated the matter without calling in the bomb squad, knew it was a geocache, and decided to make an arrest anyway. Even if the person had a geocache listing stating that express permission had been granted, it probably would not have made that much of a difference. I suppose if you were a mad bomber, it would be easy to place a bomb in a location where a geocache had been placed with permission. A passerby could still think you were suspicious and call in the police. The person granting permission may or may not be available. And the police would still have to investigate whether that container was a cache or something else. And if an officer gets upset about the whole thing, for one reason or the other . . .

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment
Clan: Under Texas Code, the arrest occurs upon resrtaint, when the cuffs go on there is an arrest. Again you missed the point, that is why I put the Texas code reference in the post.

You'd be wrong. Looking at code out of context and nothing of case law doesn't make one right when spouting one statute. There has to be both intent and restraint, or submission to authority, as per case law in Texas.

Link to comment

I've read through all the arguments and there are things that are being argued but not relevant.

 

If the cacher were to have been arrested for criminal trespass it would have been different. I know, he wasn't actually trespassing but it seems to be the argument by some.

Even if the cache was placed without permission (again, not a point of argument in this situation) then there would have had to been someone to file a complaint. Officers can't arrest and get a conviction on a trespassing charge without a complaintant. They can detain but there aren't any charges that are valid until someone decides to file charges.

 

The cacher WAS falsly arrested because he (according to the story) didn't do anything to restrict the officer from doing his job. The OFFICER was doing something to restrict him from doing his job. The officer could have been out writing tickets but he was harassing a geocacher instead.

 

Me? I would sue. I forgot that there was a kid there who had to watch daddy get arrested. I remember as a kid, watching my dad get arrested. It's not pleasant. If I didn't have my sister there with me at the time I would have been a mess. I would sue for that alone.

 

I am not afraid to be a geocacher. Now that I have been talked to by police officers @10 times, I would love to have some overzealous officer hassle me. I know enough to know that I am not doing anything illegal (except when I go in parks at night).

 

Someone commented that maybe the cacher was a little overzealous excersizing his first ammendment rights. How can you be overzealous in exercising your rights?

 

The bottom line is the cop was in the wrong and probably hoping that it all just goes away. If he's not hoping it all goes away then he's not afraid of what he did and thinks he didn't do anything wrong. And a cop like that, shouldn't be a cop.

 

Again. The police are OUR servants, not the other way around.

Link to comment

2 things...

 

Folks keep claiming that the "store manager" is the go-to for permission. That's not correct at all. The property, parking lot, sidewalks, buildings, lamp posts, and everything else on these malls are NOT owned by the "store manager". The store just rents the space from the property owner. The property owner very rarely has any direct presence on these commercial properties and even if you had permission there is really no way the stores would know about it.

 

Second, you might just move to a town where the cops are also geocachers. I work in a town where the police chief is one of the more active cachers in town. Most of the police force are also cachers. It's not a problem 'round these parts. :)

Link to comment

It doesn't really meet the criteria for "Interference with the duties of a public servant", unless he was lying to them. However, it still could happen to anyone with different charges such as creating a nuisance, or something else, along with twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence...

LOL

I love that song! I think I'll go listen to it right now on my iPod.

Link to comment
Had this happened to me and I was arrested for trespassing or something similar, I would go after the CO if I found out that there was no prior approval for the cache I was hunting.

That's pretty funny! I don't think you would have much legal basis for that. Someone else's actions causing you to do something illegal isn't much of a defense.

<_<

Link to comment

If the geocacher is not on private property and is not breaking any laws would it be better for him (or her) to just say nothing about geocaching at all? I mean just tell the cop that you were taking a little hike that is all. Why was I looking around the area? I collect bugs or rocks, etc. Bomb? What bomb? No bomb no crime. And if they happen to find a bomb (who knows know a days right) then they would have to connect it to you (finger prints, trace evidence, etc.).

 

It seems to me that maybe mentioning geocaching at all is a bad thing for us if we find ourselves in this situation. Police that do not know about Geocaching can see it in a bad light, not like the idea of people searching around for hidden caches, etc. But if they just think you are taking a walk, hike or collecting butterflies, etc. that all sounds much more innocent.

 

In general I don't like lying and especially not to police, but I also don't think we have to tell them everything we are doing either. I actually do collect rocks so I can always say that and not be lying. Do they need to know about the geocache? I don't think so, at least not in this case. If they found the cache and asked what it was then it seems to me the simplest thing to do is to just tell the whole truth about it.

 

But I might be wrong. I have never had to deal with this issue before. It might be that telling the truth fixes the situation right away with the police officers 99 times out of 100 but not telling them everything will make 50% of them more suspicious of us and lead them to question us five times longer than normal (although ultimately have to let us go since they have nothing on us).

Link to comment

the officer was right to respond to the call of the busybody. once the call is made, the officer is right to respond. upon finding that no crime is being committed, the proper action is to go get a donut. a competent officer would have known this.

 

once we make the leap that disturbing the officer from his nap or his writing of speeding tickets is interfering with his duties, one might make the case that the BUSYBODY WHO CALLED IT IN was the one interfering with the duties of the public official.

 

being questioned because an officer wants to know if you're up to no good is not interfering with his duties; questioning you IS his duty. you are not interfering, unless the activity for which you are being questioned is an intentional diversion to keep him from whatever he thinks is more important, or unless you are not forthcoming in your responses to his questions.

 

it makes, parenthetically, a very good case against stealth. sneaky-looking people will get questioned.

 

as long as the guy had to get a lawyer to get the charges dropped, the same lawyer might be used to bring a lawsuit. somebody ought to make it a full-on nightmare for that cop and his department until that guy's legal fees are paid, and a little something for his trouble besides. maybe something to compensate the son for having to see that.

 

as soon as people are charged for being arrested for crimes they didn't commit, that's a gross misapplication of police authority and that's a very bad, bad, slippery slope.

Link to comment

the officer was right to respond to the call of the busybody. once the call is made, the officer is right to respond. upon finding that no crime is being committed, the proper action is to go get a donut. a competent officer would have known this.

 

once we make the leap that disturbing the officer from his nap or his writing of speeding tickets is interfering with his duties, one might make the case that the BUSYBODY WHO CALLED IT IN was the one interfering with the duties of the public official.

 

being questioned because an officer wants to know if you're up to no good is not interfering with his duties; questioning you IS his duty. you are not interfering, unless the activity for which you are being questioned is an intentional diversion to keep him from whatever he thinks is more important, or unless you are not forthcoming in your responses to his questions.

 

it makes, parenthetically, a very good case against stealth. sneaky-looking people will get questioned.

 

as long as the guy had to get a lawyer to get the charges dropped, the same lawyer might be used to bring a lawsuit. somebody ought to make it a full-on nightmare for that cop and his department until that guy's legal fees are paid, and a little something for his trouble besides. maybe something to compensate the son for having to see that.

 

as soon as people are charged for being arrested for crimes they didn't commit, that's a gross misapplication of police authority and that's a very bad, bad, slippery slope.

 

I would extend that to say "are charged for being arrested for crimes that were never committed". If there was never a crime, there should have never been an arrest.

People get arrested for crimes they didn't commit all the time. That is nothing new.

Link to comment

This is a real shame. I've been stopped twice by police officers who were both aware of geocaching and content to leave me to my search after a brief conversation.

 

I think it's time for Groundspeak to think about banning LPCs and/or being more strict about listing caches on private property. Too many people mistakenly assume that parking lots and businesses are "public."

Link to comment

If the geocacher is not on private property and is not breaking any laws would it be better for him (or her) to just say nothing about geocaching at all? I mean just tell the cop that you were taking a little hike that is all. Why was I looking around the area? I collect bugs or rocks, etc. Bomb? What bomb? No bomb no crime. And if they happen to find a bomb (who knows know a days right) then they would have to connect it to you (finger prints, trace evidence, etc.).

 

It seems to me that maybe mentioning geocaching at all is a bad thing for us if we find ourselves in this situation. Police that do not know about Geocaching can see it in a bad light, not like the idea of people searching around for hidden caches, etc. But if they just think you are taking a walk, hike or collecting butterflies, etc. that all sounds much more innocent.

 

In general I don't like lying and especially not to police, but I also don't think we have to tell them everything we are doing either. I actually do collect rocks so I can always say that and not be lying. Do they need to know about the geocache? I don't think so, at least not in this case. If they found the cache and asked what it was then it seems to me the simplest thing to do is to just tell the whole truth about it.

 

But I might be wrong. I have never had to deal with this issue before. It might be that telling the truth fixes the situation right away with the police officers 99 times out of 100 but not telling them everything will make 50% of them more suspicious of us and lead them to question us five times longer than normal (although ultimately have to let us go since they have nothing on us).

 

No.

 

Your best bet is to tell the officer exactly what you are doing. Trying to be evasive and providing half-truths will only lead you to trouble. Most cops can smell the hinky and will read it as you hiding something else that they would be very interested in knowing about. Start with the whole truth, don't make them lead you to it.

Link to comment

This is a real shame. I've been stopped twice by police officers who were both aware of geocaching and content to leave me to my search after a brief conversation.

 

I think it's time for Groundspeak to think about banning LPCs and/or being more strict about listing caches on private property. Too many people mistakenly assume that parking lots and businesses are "public."

 

Yup, every time there is an issue with any geocache then Groundspeak should pull the listings on any cache that might be similar.

 

<_<

 

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

Link to comment
Again you missed the point

Again, so did you. The issue here is if the officer's actions would qualify as an illegal seizure under the 4th Amendment, which is the standard of measure, country wide, for false arrest claims. The term "arrest" refers to two separate actions. One is defined by 4th Amendment case law as any time a citizen is not free to go. That is a seizure of that citizen's freedoms, and constitutes an arrest. The other is physically charging someone with a crime. That is also an arrest.

 

The officer's initial response was lawful, reasonable and prudent, and if the cacher had been released on scene, after the investigation was concluded, he would have no grounds for civil action against the officer or the department. Where the officer crossed the line, (again assuming that the one side of this silliness bears even a trifling resemblance to the truth), is when he made a physical arrest.

 

Up to that point, he had nothing to protect, so inventing this "bargaining" that you came up with just doesn't match reality. The only way that paranoid viewpoint might have come into play was if the officer erred in his initial actions. He did not.

Link to comment

I don't know if there was a $2,000.00 lawyer fee involved in this case or not. I hope that there was. Perhaps THAT will get the attention of cache hiders. It seems as though nothing else has worked.

 

Or, conversely, maybe it will get the attention of the seekers and they will stop looking in places were there is a really good chance that it was placed without permission. Telling yourself "it got published so surely it must be okay" only goes so far.

 

There is no converse to it. Just do not do it. Period.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment
I agree with the spirit of your opinion, but I see some practical pit-falls and pot-holes on the road ahead.

You are correct, of course. Mine was not a bullet proof solution, guaranteed to keep caches from causing trouble. Still, I think it would help. I believe that a large majority of these types of caches would stop being allowed, or if Groundspeak didn't grandfather the new guideline, would cease to exist altogether. It seems, from my seat in the bleachers, that there is a certain commonality between the caches we keep reading about in these forums, getting visits from bomb squads. That commonality is the location type. Specifically, business parking lots.

 

As for managers being the "right" person to ask, I think that would depend, ultimately, on your overall objective. In this case, I'm looking for a means to avoid escalating conflicts between cachers and law enforcement. I'm imagining a scenario where I, as a cop who knows nothing about the game, respond to a suspicious persons complaint, and find someone poking around under a lamp post. When I ask them what they are doing, they weave this sordid tale about using multi-billion dollar military satellites to hunt down film cans. If they show me the film can, and tell me John Smith, the store manager at Wally World, allowed that film can to be placed there, I would likely bid them good day.

 

While Wally World occasionally doesn't own the parking lots in front of their stores, their managers are empowered to make certain decisions regarding their use, just as in any lease agreement. From a store policy viewpoint, caching may not be one of those decisions they are allowed to make, but from a legal viewpoint, it is.

Link to comment

 

 

Nobody actually thought it was a bomb -- you don’t get brought to an active bomb site by the police.

Did you read the story in the OP's link?

 

That funny looking guy in the cumbersome suit is an EOD tech, OBVIOUSLY, someone thought it was a bomb or that guy would NOT be there in a suit with the robot, that is the stuff they use for BOMBS, not the Sunday church social. Yes, suspects are returned to the scene of the crime ALL THE TIME, I have taken arson suspects back to the scene of a fire, thank God I have never had to deal with a bomb threat yet, but he day is coming, I am sure as Clan Riffster can confirm. It is not unusual. You take the suspect back to the CP area, and continue the discussion, not unusual in these cases at all.

Edited by Bergie Bunch
Link to comment

My first reaction on reading the OP was that between this

They took me back to Academy Sports where I was interviewed by a police detective. I again explained about geocaching and after they had determined that it was not a bomb but rather a geocache, they took me back to my car.
and this
A few minutes later, they arrested me for Interference with the duties of a public servant.
the cache seeker might have been a little over-enthusiastic in the exercise of his First Amendment rights.

My thought too "illegal use of the mouth after his first release".

Why is everyone so fast to fault the LEO?

Edited by TheHunterSeeker
Link to comment
I agree with the spirit of your opinion, but I see some practical pit-falls and pot-holes on the road ahead.

You are correct, of course. Mine was not a bullet proof solution, guaranteed to keep caches from causing trouble. Still, I think it would help. I believe that a large majority of these types of caches would stop being allowed, or if Groundspeak didn't grandfather the new guideline, would cease to exist altogether. It seems, from my seat in the bleachers, that there is a certain commonality between the caches we keep reading about in these forums, getting visits from bomb squads. That commonality is the location type. Specifically, business parking lots.

 

As for managers being the "right" person to ask, I think that would depend, ultimately, on your overall objective. In this case, I'm looking for a means to avoid escalating conflicts between cachers and law enforcement. I'm imagining a scenario where I, as a cop who knows nothing about the game, respond to a suspicious persons complaint, and find someone poking around under a lamp post. When I ask them what they are doing, they weave this sordid tale about using multi-billion dollar military satellites to hunt down film cans. If they show me the film can, and tell me John Smith, the store manager at Wally World, allowed that film can to be placed there, I would likely bid them good day.

 

While Wally World occasionally doesn't own the parking lots in front of their stores, their managers are empowered to make certain decisions regarding their use, just as in any lease agreement. From a store policy viewpoint, caching may not be one of those decisions they are allowed to make, but from a legal viewpoint, it is.

 

Bid them good day? Not hardly. If I were a cop who thought that he had good reason to show up, I'd danged certain walk my little self right over to that Wally store and find out for my self. Then when I come back to the cache location, the CO or which cache seeker is there will be removing the cache. Else, I remove it my self.

 

Simple.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment
A few minutes later, they arrested me for Interference with the duties of a public servant.

 

What the heck does this mean?? Were you (the letter writer) causing a scene or was this yet another case of law enforcement abusing their percieved, god-like, authority?? This just burns my butt. The more I hear these stories the more anti-cop I become. And NO, I have never been arrested, ever. No personal axe to grind.

this letter that this topic is about was sent to me by the cacher that had this unfortunate incadent happened to. Condor1 didn't write it so claiming he did and the way it was written claim he did was out of bounds.

I know Caleb.Osborn personaly and I have found the cache that was the center of this over reaction by the Midland PD. Yes there are plenty of caches hidden on parking lots and yes I have a couple and I am sure plenty of y'all may have some as well. I know this topic is for the over reaction of the PD and that is what I have to laugh at cause common sence shall come into play.

The said cache was in a lamp pole away from any buildings and not near any federal, state or any other building that would be targeted by any idiot that would do any such thing as a bomb. They closed the loop around the town in that area and 2 streets and several buildings around. The brought the robot to remove the cache and all. The officers and the reactions taken by the Midland lawenforcement were emberrased for their over reaction and did what they could do to make up for their over reaction by arresting and charging him for their ignorance.

There wasn't any laws broken so how can there be an arrest? They where pointed that out by his lawyer and they must have realized they had to back off. I beleive that any officer and/of DA that has done overuse of power need to be reprominded as they repremend the general public for going 2 miles over the speed limit. I know a lil more into detail about what was told to Caleb but im not going into this topic with it cause the officer might catch some backfire from it and I do hope he does.

I have been questioned by law enforcement more then once and had my ID check right along with my sister Kayebear40s the officer was polite and told us that he couldn't stop us for what we are doing and we had our rights. He just advised us if the property owner didn't give permission for the cache to be placed there and he saw us looking on his property he had the right to charge us with criminal trespass. The only concern the officer had with us is that the location wasn't the safest and advised us it maybe safer to get it during the daytime.

Link to comment

I am really sorry that happened to the guy in Texas. I just reminds me to be careful while in persuit of my hobby. I think I will get a dozen or so of the brochures printed and keep them handy in case I am stopped. I have always been

careful of LEO's after I obtained a concealed carry permit. When you have a loaded weapon in your car, you learn to move carefully, have the permit handy, and keep my hands in plain site on the steering wheel.

Link to comment
If there was never a crime, there should have never been an arrest.

It doesn't work that way. An arrest is made on "probable cause." A conviction is made on "beyond a reasonable doubt." Two different standards.

 

So what happens if I make an arrest on a person having a small sandwich baggie of off-white rock-like material and it even field tests presumptive for cocaine base. Yet, after analysis it comes back as bunk (imitation controlled substance). That charge of possession of cocaine base, or worse yet, possession with the intent to distribute, gets tossed out. It's happened to me. I was pretty sure there was a crime. Turned out not to be. No crime in possessing an imitation controlled substance. The only crime would be if he sold it or otherwise distributed it as crack.

 

It's a wonderful thing that there are different branches of government. The legal system works fairly well that way. Otherwise, an arrest would take someone straight to prison bypassing all courts and trials.

Link to comment

My first reaction on reading the OP was that between this

They took me back to Academy Sports where I was interviewed by a police detective. I again explained about geocaching and after they had determined that it was not a bomb but rather a geocache, they took me back to my car.
and this
A few minutes later, they arrested me for Interference with the duties of a public servant.
the cache seeker might have been a little over-enthusiastic in the exercise of his First Amendment rights.

My thought too "illegal use of the mouth after his first release".

Why is everyone so fast to fault the LEO?

 

You say " illegal use of the mouth" You say something about a cacher you don't even know. I know him personaly and he is a minster as well. If you don't know him don't say anything.

Link to comment
If there was never a crime, there should have never been an arrest.

It doesn't work that way. An arrest is made on "probable cause." A conviction is made on "beyond a reasonable doubt." Two different standards.

 

So what happens if I make an arrest on a person having a small sandwich baggie of off-white rock-like material and it even field tests presumptive for cocaine base. Yet, after analysis it comes back as bunk (imitation controlled substance). That charge of possession of cocaine base, or worse yet, possession with the intent to distribute, gets tossed out. It's happened to me. I was pretty sure there was a crime. Turned out not to be. No crime in possessing an imitation controlled substance. The only crime would be if he sold it or otherwise distributed it as crack.

 

It's a wonderful thing that there are different branches of government. The legal system works fairly well that way. Otherwise, an arrest would take someone straight to prison bypassing all courts and trials.

 

I know it doesn't work that way but it's suposed to work that way.

 

I know I will catch flack for being an alarmist but there is a revolution coming and this kind of thing will be addressed.

 

When the "authorities" arrest people when no crime has been committed, we have issues.

 

And for the record, I have been detained on suspicion as well. And I was penalized out of principal meaning the officer was embarassed because he flubbed up. I'm a little older and wiser now. It would not happen again without a fight (not a physical one).

Link to comment

While I can appreciate his ordeal, I would love to be in his position (well if it were in Oregon) because I would not rest until the arresting officer faced some sort of inconvenience for false arrest.

It appears, on the surface, that the arresing officer was just upset that he was made out to be a fool and tried to find any excuse to justify his mistake.

 

I'm glad it worked out for him. I hope he didn't have to pay for his attorney but if he did, he shouldn't stop till the police department pays him back.

 

IMHO

 

I agree with you 106% on the second statement but I am betting he did have to pay out of pocket.

Link to comment

One other thing is that if you look at his profile of hides you will see that he archived all 16 of his hides including an Earthcache. This guy will probably quit caching all together.

 

You see, that's why I despise over-enthusiastic, self righteous police officers. Some of them really do take the job a little too seriously and believe they are the boss of everyone. They are servants for the innocent, nothing more.

 

To start out with I guess I should let you know I am "Condor1" and "The Real Things" brother from Las Vegas NV. The cop was over zealous in his actions as I have been pretty lucky and really only approached by 1 metro and just 3 rent a cops at the mall once I explained them about the sport / obsession they under stood and went on their way with the exception of one kid about 20 to 25 yrs old had a big head and had his chest all out trying to be tough but the 2 others were seasoned rent a cops and said it is legal and time for us to move on and get back to work..

Link to comment

One other thing is that if you look at his profile of hides you will see that he archived all 16 of his hides including an Earthcache. This guy will probably quit caching all together.

 

You see, that's why I despise over-enthusiastic, self righteous police officers. Some of them really do take the job a little too seriously and believe they are the boss of everyone. They are servants for the innocent, nothing more.

 

Maybe he was an over-enthusiastic, self righteous cacher. maybe he wasn't straight-forward with the officer from the beginning. Not knowing the whole story and blaming the police gives cachers a bad name.

 

If anything I would point blame towards Groundspeak. I love caching but I firmly believe there are way too many urban caches that no matter how stealthy a caches thinks they are could easily be mistaken for mischievous activity. I would fully support written permission being required for caches.

Link to comment

I know I will catch flack for being an alarmist but there is a revolution coming and this kind of thing will be addressed.

When the "authorities" arrest people when no crime has been committed, we have issues.

<_<

OK, I'm ready. The show can begin any time now. :D

 

Seriously... the "authorities" have been arresting people when no crime has been committed since time immemorial. In fact, everybody ever arrested in this country has been innocent of the crimes they have been arrested for. They are not guilty of a thing until the judicial system says that they are. And even they make mistakes, obviously. The goal is to keep these mistakes to a minimum and to hopefully have the checks and balances in place to remedy them when they do occur.

Flaws, or not, I'll take the current system over any ad-hoc "revolutionary" system that thinks it could take its place.

Link to comment

You see, that's why I despise over-enthusiastic, self righteous police officers. Some of them really do take the job a little too seriously and believe they are the boss of everyone. They are servants for the innocent, nothing more.

Maybe he was an over-enthusiastic, self righteous cacher. maybe he wasn't straight-forward with the officer from the beginning. Not knowing the whole story and blaming the police gives cachers a bad name.

 

If anything I would point blame towards Groundspeak. I love caching but I firmly believe there are way too many urban caches that no matter how stealthy a caches thinks they are could easily be mistaken for mischievous activity. I would fully support written permission being required for caches.

How can Groundspeak be blamed? They don't own caches. They are a listing service, nothing else. It would be like blaming Craigslist because someone sold you a car that exploded, simply because the car was advertised on craigslist.

That's a silly argument.

 

BTW, Groundspeak, as far as I know doesn't lay claim on any geocache at all and geocaches can be listed anywhere, not just on geocaching.com.

I know I will catch flack for being an alarmist but there is a revolution coming and this kind of thing will be addressed.

When the "authorities" arrest people when no crime has been committed, we have issues.

<_<

OK, I'm ready. The show can begin any time now. :D

 

Seriously... the "authorities" have been arresting people when no crime has been committed since time immemorial. In fact, everybody ever arrested in this country has been innocent of the crimes they have been arrested for. They are not guilty of a thing until the judicial system says that they are. And even they make mistakes, obviously. The goal is to keep these mistakes to a minimum and to hopefully have the checks and balances in place to remedy them when they do occur.

Flaws, or not, I'll take the current system over any ad-hoc "revolutionary" system that thinks it could take its place.

In your argument, crimes are committed. I keep saying, and people keep missing, to arrest someone WHEN NO CRIME EXISTED is wrong. Making up something to charge someone with should also be illegal, but it's not.

 

Caps added for emphasis, not yelling! :rolleyes:

 

I also like the idea posted somewhere above that victimless crimes should not be arrestable offenses.

Link to comment

It seems that muggles are already getting more zealous in reporting suspicious activities... but just wait till a few terrorist bombs do go off in malls and parking lots.

 

We should all do our part to talk with LEOs, congress men, and other authoritative persons and put in a good word about geocaching. As the old saying goes - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

Link to comment
How can Groundspeak be blamed? They don't own caches. They are a listing service, nothing else. That's a silly argument.

Not silly at all. As a listing service, Groundspeak decides what will, and what will not, be listed on here, knowing that if they give a submitted cache the official nod, folks will go look for it. As the system currently stands, Groundspeak takes a firm role in policing what we, the tax payers, do on public land that we pay for. If I submit a cache listing in the Lil Big Econ State Forest, my reviewer is gonna ask me, (rightfully so), if I have a permit. They've adopted an "explicit permission only" stance for certain public lands. That would certainly show that Groundspeak sympathises with public land managers. It also shows that they are more than just a listing service, as they take an active role in deciding what they'll allow on their site. Taking this a step further, when you read their tips to hiding a cache, Groundspeak says quite clearly that a cache hidden on private property must have permission, thereby putting forth the appearance that Groundspeak cares about private property owners as well. Yet their guidelines only require "adequate" permission for hides on private property, even though they know that their soft stance on the matter has led to many problematic caches.

 

Knowing a problem exists, and burying your head in the sand rather than address it could be cause for blame in some civil circles.

Link to comment
How can Groundspeak be blamed? They don't own caches. They are a listing service, nothing else. That's a silly argument.

Not silly at all. As a listing service, Groundspeak decides what will, and what will not, be listed on here, knowing that if they give a submitted cache the official nod, folks will go look for it. As the system currently stands, Groundspeak takes a firm role in policing what we, the tax payers, do on public land that we pay for. If I submit a cache listing in the Lil Big Econ State Forest, my reviewer is gonna ask me, (rightfully so), if I have a permit. They've adopted an "explicit permission only" stance for certain public lands. That would certainly show that Groundspeak sympathises with public land managers. It also shows that they are more than just a listing service, as they take an active role in deciding what they'll allow on their site. Taking this a step further, when you read their tips to hiding a cache, Groundspeak says quite clearly that a cache hidden on private property must have permission, thereby putting forth the appearance that Groundspeak cares about private property owners as well. Yet their guidelines only require "adequate" permission for hides on private property, even though they know that their soft stance on the matter has led to many problematic caches.

 

Knowing a problem exists, and burying your head in the sand rather than address it could be cause for blame in some civil circles.

I don't want to argue the point in this thread but I suspect the GS lawyers would probably have the best idea.

 

BTW, Craigslist also removes listings for their reasons...

Link to comment

One other thing is that if you look at his profile of hides you will see that he archived all 16 of his hides including an Earthcache. This guy will probably quit caching all together.

 

You see, that's why I despise over-enthusiastic, self righteous police officers. Some of them really do take the job a little too seriously and believe they are the boss of everyone. They are servants for the innocent, nothing more.

 

Maybe he was an over-enthusiastic, self righteous cacher. maybe he wasn't straight-forward with the officer from the beginning. Not knowing the whole story and blaming the police gives cachers a bad name.

 

If anything I would point blame towards Groundspeak. I love caching but I firmly believe there are way too many urban caches that no matter how stealthy a caches thinks they are could easily be mistaken for mischievous activity. I would fully support written permission being required for caches.

I know the cacher and he isn't over-enthusiastic at all, Some people beleive officers don't take there authority to far but some do. Yes there are some cacher like me that doesn't take the over use of power lightly but there are proper proceedures in place to deal with that.

They charged him for taking an officer from his line of duty I don't see how that can be a legal charge. The main point in all of this is an officer miss using his power due to his embarassment for his over reaction.

Groundspeak isn't to blame for some of us cachers placing caches on private property and yes I do have a couple that are and I may arcive them. Groundspeak has made this great caching game for all of use to enjoy and they do have there guidelines that not all of us stick to. They can't police everylocation and know that the blank space that the coordinates show are a lamp post hide on a private parkinglot or a medicine bottle hidden in a bush up against the wall at a walgreens. So I beleive Groundspeak doesnt need to handle any of the blame.

Edited by The real thing
Link to comment

"Interfering with the duties".....

 

Hmm - lets see. Regardless of the reason of the call to the police (by the witness) there was in fact a call. The cacher can only assume that (based on the guidelines for placement and approval of a cache) that the cache was placed with permission.

 

Given those basic facts, the police were responding to the concerns of a a citizen. They checked things out, determined that there was nothing fishy, and should have gone on about their way and checked off the 'learned something new today' item on their to-do list.

 

There was no interference with their duties. In fact the actions of the cacher simply crossed paths with their duties and became a part of them that day. Nothing more.

 

As other posters have mentioned, listing on the cache page who gave permission for the placement of the cache when on private property would have been most helpful and really should be a requirement. It's simple enough to jot down a name, then list the phone number for the property owner when typing up the listing - and it makes the job of the reviewer that much easier.

 

Of course giving the climate of our society today, I find myself more and more reluctant to do caches that are in locations where I can foresee potential problems such as this one.

 

I hope I never have to fact this situation personally, but I also keep Geocaching info cards in my cache bag with the hopes that they will help avoid such misunderstandings.

Link to comment

It seems that muggles are already getting more zealous in reporting suspicious activities... but just wait till a few terrorist bombs do go off in malls and parking lots.

 

We should all do our part to talk with LEOs, congress men, and other authoritative persons and put in a good word about geocaching. As the old saying goes - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

 

yeah, suspension of civil liberties to prevent terrorism really seems to be working well on a global basis.

Link to comment

In this case, the officer investigated the matter without calling in the bomb squad, knew it was a geocache, and decided to make an arrest anyway. Even if the person had a geocache listing stating that express permission had been granted, it probably would not have made that much of a difference. I suppose if you were a mad bomber, it would be easy to place a bomb in a location where a geocache had been placed with permission. A passerby could still think you were suspicious and call in the police. The person granting permission may or may not be available. And the police would still have to investigate whether that container was a cache or something else. And if an officer gets upset about the whole thing, for one reason or the other . . .

There is a mention in this thread that the bomb squad may in fact have been involved (strange the email story didn't mention that).

 

The conclusion of the story ("Get Permission") is, as you suggest, not all that applicable to the story, unless they're saying that cachers must check with the permission granter before the search. And to check with the police. And to avoid observant muggles with cell phones.

 

But here's what I think is the actual moral to the story:

If you're done caching, and your kid says "let's do one more cache"... don't.

Link to comment
...where the cop was totally in the wrong (conclusion based on dropped charges)

For the record, charges get dropped all the time, even when the cop is "totally" (sorry to revert back to 80's speak), in the right. Basing your conclusion upon only that fact is setting yourself up for failure. The most common reason charges get dropped is because the victim changed their mind about prosecuting. This accounts for roughly 90% of dropped charges. After that, the most common reason that charges are dropped, (about 6%), is because the victim is not reliable. Next on the list, at about 1% each, are State Attorneys who misread reports, officers who are not up to speed with the latest Supreme Court interpretations of existing laws, and officer screw ups. Toss in a few other reasons having to do with politics and such to round it off.

 

I should note for clarity that I have no solid figures to support my claims. These numbers represent what I remember from a life long career in law enforcement.

 

Concluding that the cop was totally in the wrong based upon dropped charges is not the mark of an uber genius.

 

If we pretend that this actually did happen, and we pretend that the third party account we've been fed is accurate, the cop crossed the line. Big time. However, I'll wait till I hear "The Rest Of The Story" before I pass judgement.

Link to comment
...where the cop was totally in the wrong (conclusion based on dropped charges)

For the record, charges get dropped all the time, even when the cop is "totally" (sorry to revert back to 80's speak), in the right. Basing your conclusion upon only that fact is setting yourself up for failure. The most common reason charges get dropped is because the victim changed their mind about prosecuting. This accounts for roughly 90% of dropped charges. After that, the most common reason that charges are dropped, (about 6%), is because the victim is not reliable. Next on the list, at about 1% each, are State Attorneys who misread reports, officers who are not up to speed with the latest Supreme Court interpretations of existing laws, and officer screw ups. Toss in a few other reasons having to do with politics and such to round it off.

 

I should note for clarity that I have no solid figures to support my claims. These numbers represent what I remember from a life long career in law enforcement.

 

Concluding that the cop was totally in the wrong based upon dropped charges is not the mark of an uber genius.

 

If we pretend that this actually did happen, and we pretend that the third party account we've been fed is accurate, the cop crossed the line. Big time. However, I'll wait till I hear "The Rest Of The Story" before I pass judgement.

 

So, let me get this straight. If the information you have at this point is accurate then you would agree with my conclusion (sans parenthesis comment)? But you still felt the need to tell me I was wrong?

 

The parenthesis comment was only part of why I came to the conclusion that I did. And, for the record, if I am right (and you are as well) then I retain, and reiterate, my Uber-geniusness.

Link to comment

Not to support or challenge anyone's claims to Uber-genius, but I think what he's saying is that:

 

With the information we have, it appears you are correct. However, basing your conclusion solely on the fact that charges were in fact, dropped is a risky proposition. He's not going to confirm your assessment until there is enough information to formulate an accurate assessment. (Like the other side of the story.)

 

I think most of us are predisposed to "blame" the cop. But, it is prudent to remain objective, and learn all we can before making the assessment. But, I don't think we'll ever hear from the cop, so it is what it is, and we have what we have.

 

I think the moral of the story is: be smart, be honest and if you think "A cache in this location might cause problems," then don't hide it there, or hunt for it there. I know it's a limit to the game, which some people don't like. But, at the end of the day, terrorism is no game, and I'll say again, I'd rather a vigilant citizen call the police when in doubt than allow something horrible to happen. As I also said, however, the police need to remain objective in their assessment of the situation as well. As long as everyone is objective, honest and applies some common sense, it should work out in the end.

 

Later!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...