Jump to content

Arrested in Texas for Geocaching


condor1

Recommended Posts

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!

That is why I am an Uber Genius and others are not.

 

I never said my conclusion was based solely on the charges being dropped. I used other criteria but the dropped charges were the kicker.

 

You see, the difference is that I know what I said. I know what I meant and others speculated or inflected their own idea of what I meant.

 

<_<

Link to comment

Lots of replies regarding adequate permission, the need for explicit permission on private property, and calls for Groundspeak to do... something.

 

If adequate permission is an issue for you take a leadership role and set an example. Place the Permission Giver's contact information in the description of all of your caches where explicit permission is required.

Link to comment

I can't read this thread anymore... gets me fuming.

 

As bittsen said "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."

 

90% of LEOs I've encountered are a-$%^&* I think it's a requirement for the job.

Link to comment

I can't read this thread anymore... gets me fuming.

 

As bittsen said "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."

 

90% of LEOs I've encountered are a-$%^&* I think it's a requirement for the job.

 

"Some members of the law enforcement community take their jobs a little too seriously." I'd have never imagined.

 

The reason that I'd never have imagined such is that 98% of the members of the law enforcement community that I've met are dedicated, well trained, professional and hard working public servants.

 

Of course that does leave the potential for 2% to be the a-$%^&* types. Life can have it's rough spots, can't it?

Link to comment

... 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...

 

In this case it was most likely an overzealous rookie pumped up from watching 24 reruns sent on an 'urgent' donut run at he behest of his superiors. He didn't get to pull out his gun and yell, "Put the cache down!! Put the cache down NOW!!"

 

Now everyone take two shots of your favorite beverage.

Link to comment

I understand that it is easy to place blame completely on the police officer. However, it is important to remember that all of our facts come from a “story” that the topic starter had received from another geocacher. So everything that we have to speculate on is second hand information.

 

Some people are blasting the police officer for not knowing about geocaching. Yes, geocaching is increasing in popularity, but we are not talking about NFL football, or major league baseball here. Geocaching is still a rather niche of an activity.

 

In these days of drug dealers, bomb scares, and a hypersensitive general public, I can see why the officer might have detained the geocacher temporarily. Unfortunately the “story” does not provide enough details as to why he was supposedly taken to jail. Perhaps it was a false arrest. Just remember though, this is only one side of the story. I believe there are probably more pages to this chapter that we do not know about.

Link to comment

Bittsen,

 

I do not know you at all. You do not know me either. I have something I need to get off of my chest.

 

You rub me the wrong way. :)

 

Sorry,

:D

 

That disappoints me more than you could know.

You see, I don't know you, and you don't know me, but I adore you. I was so hoping we could be bestest friends.

 

:unsure:

Link to comment

A couple of observations :

 

Bomb fears.......I posted on a state forum a year ago that when you are out hiking ( or home sleaping ) you have a better chance of an airplane falling on you than being injured by a bomb........in the last year or so in the U.S. 4+ people have been killed by planes falling on them, no bomb problems........the whole bomb thing makes me sick. :)

 

Police.......we have had a dozen ++ encounters with police usually having to educate them a bit, esp. in the early years ( a couple in Houston ).......they were ALWAYS pleasant encounters with more than a few becoming interested in the hobby. Usually they were checking to see if we needed assistance. :D

 

MYOB.....I sure wish folks would do that .

Link to comment
90% of LEOs I've encountered are a-$%^&* I think it's a requirement for the job.

Probably because you were on the wrong end of a traffic ticket and mad that you got caught.

Yeah, that's the impression I got as well.

Maybe a whiny little entitlement junkie who is not allowed to behave how he wishes?

Blames society for all his poor decisions? Just speculating... :)

Link to comment
But you still felt the need to tell me I was wrong?

Yes. Anyone who has the ability to apply logic, (such as the average uber genius), would know there are far too few facts on the table to support any conclusion. At this point we don't even know if the guy was really arrested. If he was arrested, we don't know what he was charged with. If he was charged, we don't know if the charges were dropped. If the charges were dropped, we don't know why.

 

A .pdf file of the police report would be a good start.

 

Since a couple locals have chimed in, obtaining the facts shouldn't be too hard.

 

If we ever do get the facts, and it is discovered that the officer did step way out of bounds, your being right would not be the result of any genius on your part. Anyone can make a guess without evidence.

Link to comment

we have had a dozen ++ encounters with police usually having to educate them a bit, esp. in the early years ( a couple in Houston ).......they were ALWAYS pleasant encounters with more than a few becoming interested in the hobby. Usually they were checking to see if we needed assistance. :)

Same here. Once when I was Geocaching, a LEO found my empty car near a wooded area, and stopped to call it in, and check on it. There are many situations where that would be exactly what I need.

 

That was the one where I logged that I arrived back at the car "slightly scratched up, sweaty and dirty, and holding a used DVD". It was admittedly a little tough to explain it all.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Danged if this hasn't gotten to be one of the biggest mud slinging contests ever. Is this a geocaching forum, or the national political conventions?

 

There are a lot of pretty strong opinions on here from both sides of the debate. Very well may be some basis for all of them. Don't know.......

 

One suggestion though if I may?? Let's all of us, pro cop and anti cop and cop, make an effort to, when confronted by the other side, make a serious, concious attempt to take a deep breath and try to see where the other person is coming from before we blow up. Most cachers, I'm sure, are just trying to have a good time without causing problems and most cops are just trying to do a generally thankless job for not the best money in the world.

 

Most cops don't eat donuts any more than anybody else just as most cachers aren't planting bombs.

 

Take a breath and remember it's "supposed" to be fun.

Edited by carolnbarney
Link to comment

cops some in two flavors: people who want to be helpful, and people who want to push people around because they can.

 

i find that those belonging to the second flavor of person (and it is a fairly common trait) are naturally attracted to jobs where they can push people around. they like to become cops, customs agents, teachers, and any other job that will afford them the opportunity to do this.

 

a person like this working in a taco bell doesn't matter probably in the larger scheme of things, but a cop or a teacher like this can do a lot of damage. a cop like this places the public at risk. it's worth speaking out about, and strongly.

Link to comment

 

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).

 

I guess you missed this reply the last time to your contention that the bomb squad was not on scene, forget the email use the LINK, it has pictures! BOMB TECH! ROBOT! They were there!

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

 

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).

 

I guess you missed this reply the last time to your contention that the bomb squad was not on scene, forget the email use the LINK, it has pictures! BOMB TECH! ROBOT! They were there!

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.

 

So the suspect was taken back to the scene. Why didn't they just let him walk up to the cache and show them it was harmless?

Link to comment

Being that this was an incident with precedent:

 

You would think they would have checked Geocaching.com to see , they already were familiar with Geocaching. My local sheriff checks geocaching.com whenever there is a report of a suspicious package.

 

http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=17307

 

http://www.newswest9.com/Global/story.asp?S=8756390

 

Can you say: Make an example of the scalawags.

Link to comment

Off topic, but fun... I just got around to looking at the reader comments for that news story. Got a kick out of this one:

 

this sounds like a game for people who are really bored; tech savvy, but really bored. I'll save my money for a new 3-D flat panel coming out this summer.
Link to comment
Why didn't they just let him walk up to the cache and show them it was harmless?

According to the email story, the police had to hunt him down. During that time, the situation evidently spiraled way, way out of proportion. Perhaps the bomb squad was already on scene when he was brought back there?

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I guess you missed this reply the last time to your contention that the bomb squad was not on scene, forget the email use the LINK

But I was commenting on that un-linked email story, which had some key points missing, being particularly vague about any bomb squad. It only talks about one interfered cop.

 

So it seemed to be a small issue with one annoyed police officer, and no bomb scare. I was simply a saying it's completely preposterous, wacky, insane, sensless to bring everyone back to where a suspected bomb is (especially since the accused is not allowed to get close enough to prove it's not a bomb). I wasn't saying it's not unusual. Sorry for the confusion.

Link to comment

I guess you missed this reply the last time to your contention that the bomb squad was not on scene, forget the email use the LINK

But I was commenting on that un-linked email story, which had some key points missing, being particularly vague about any bomb squad. It only talks about one interfered cop.

 

So it seemed to be a small issue with one annoyed police officer, and no bomb scare. I was simply a saying it's completely preposterous, wacky, insane, sensless to bring everyone back to where a suspected bomb is (especially since the accused is not allowed to get close enough to prove it's not a bomb). I wasn't saying it's not unusual. Sorry for the confusion.

I understand my dragon friend, thanks for the clarification! I too appologize for the confusion.

Link to comment

In short... the cop was wrong and proven wrong after trying to cover his azz.

Not all cops are stupid but some are. If even one cop is stupid then that is one too many.

The problem with only one out of thousands of cops being wrong versus one average citizen being wrong is... an average citizen does not have the power to put me in cuffs, beat me and put me in jail.

 

Cops have a job to do and I would like to think most do it well. But not all do.

 

And those that don't should be removed by the ones that do and not hidden behind the thin blue line.

 

I stand by my right to remain silent. "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU"

 

Why would anyone say anything to the police? It is not my job to help them put me in jail.

they get paid just fine to do that themselves.

 

For the record, I have no record.

 

Remember people... the police are paid servants to the taxpayer... not elected officials.

Link to comment

none of this would have ever happened if the cache wasn't place where it was.

True. And if it’s in a really bad spot, where people have been nosing around suspiciously, annoying shoppers and businesses, and where you might get arrested, Cachers should consider noting that in the log -- including a Needs Archived, if appropriate. At least give newbees a "heads up" in the cache description.

 

IMHO, “permission” is irrelevant to this story. It would very likely be exactly the same, except that when the DA dropped the charges, there'd be a phrase saying “thank God they had permission to place that cache, or who knows what may have happened.”

 

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

 

Permission or not, it appears that this cache was placed in a less-than-sensible location. One where cachers COULD be observed searching/replacing the cache, thereby exposing themselves to the consequences - as has happened here.

 

It really falls to the more experienced cachers in the community to EDUCATE their fellow cachers (and newbies) as to what constitutes a good, or a poor, hide. Please lead by example.

 

As well, it falls to those same cachers to report in their logs, using the needs archived button if necessary, any problems they see with the cache hide. Any 'on private property' or 'potential adverse authority intervention' logs should be investigated by GC.com and the cache disabled immediately. IMHO.

Link to comment
Why would anyone say anything to the police?

Why wouldn't they? :)

I don't go around committing crimes, so on those occasions when I have an encounter with law enforcement, I have no qualms telling them exactly what I am doing. It just feels polite, to me. I like to approach the rest of the world sans shoulder mounted chips, and, to me, refusing to answer a polite inquiry, from anyone, including a LEO, just screams of bad attitude.

 

Note: For those who do go around committing crimes, (even those who have never been caught, and therefor have no record), silence is probably a good idea.

Link to comment
Why would anyone say anything to the police?

Why wouldn't they? :)

I don't go around committing crimes, so on those occasions when I have an encounter with law enforcement, I have no qualms telling them exactly what I am doing. It just feels polite, to me. I like to approach the rest of the world sans shoulder mounted chips, and, to me, refusing to answer a polite inquiry, from anyone, including a LEO, just screams of bad attitude.

Note: For those who do go around committing crimes, (even those who have never been caught, and therefor have no record), silence is probably a good idea.

In this case, it would appear that the cacher that got arresteded, only to have the charges dropped after hiring an attorney, wasn't committing any crime, either.

I agree with you in that I would also have simply told the plain and (what I would have assumed was) simple truth, but I can see by this post that it might not always be the best route. Yeah, he had the charges dropped, but he still has a hefty lawyer fee. Simply being innocent and honest does not always pay.

Link to comment
Simply being innocent and honest does not always pay.

In this case, has the one been linked to the other? I know I've read some posts speculating that the cacher was arrested for running his mouth, but is there any evidence to support that? If we assume that this third hand account is true, and that it went down as the OP claimed, the guy was doomed for handcuffs anyway. Speaking or not speaking wouldn't have made any difference. Again, assuming this account is real, had the cop been a professional, and not a jerk, open, honest communication would likely have resulted in the cacher being told "Have a nice day, Sir".

Link to comment
Simply being innocent and honest does not always pay.

In this case, has the one been linked to the other? I know I've read some posts speculating that the cacher was arrested for running his mouth, but is there any evidence to support that? If we assume that this third hand account is true, and that it went down as the OP claimed, the guy was doomed for handcuffs anyway. Speaking or not speaking wouldn't have made any difference. Again, assuming this account is real, had the cop been a professional, and not a jerk, open, honest communication would likely have resulted in the cacher being told "Have a nice day, Sir".

Well, we do have what could amount to a character witness for the cacher in post #79 (I thought there was another one that stated that he was a minister, but I may be confused with another thread). I will say, however, that closer reading, even of the original post (not to mention the related and linked-to thread), clearly indicates that there was more than one officer involved here.

The posts that suggested the cacher was running his mouth were purely speculative, and even then, since when does an innocent person running off at the mouth put them in handcuffs?

Link to comment

Permission or not, this involves first of all, an apparently over-reactive witness, followed by a LEO that is still unaware of a very popular public activity that is now one decade old. To me, that is inexcusable. There is not a police officer in this country that by now should not at least have an inkling of what geocaching is. I don't think that it is being too hard on them to not have a general understanding of our game by now. It makes me wonder what decade old illegal things might be going on under their noses.

 

There may well be extenuating circumstances behind the actual arrest that we don't know (a belligerent attitude on the cacher's behalf, perhaps?) but I find it very hard to see how the arresting officer could justify any action like that after (finally!) understanding what had taken place. It seems that arresting the person that called in the supposed bomb scare would at least have equal liability in this case!

 

Well, I will have to disagree with what you wrote and I bolded. I have taught many officers and bring up geocaching many times and have found very few that know about it. You really think that geocaching is that important when meth labs present a multitude of challenges? Trust me, knowing about geocaching is NOT high on the list of things to know when there is so much more out there that we deal with on a daily basis and need to be experts about. Oh, but "old illegal things might be going on under their noses." We must be pretty dumb in your book until you call us to deal with your problem.

Link to comment
Why would anyone say anything to the police?

Why wouldn't they? :)

I don't go around committing crimes, so on those occasions when I have an encounter with law enforcement, I have no qualms telling them exactly what I am doing. It just feels polite, to me. I like to approach the rest of the world sans shoulder mounted chips, and, to me, refusing to answer a polite inquiry, from anyone, including a LEO, just screams of bad attitude.

 

Note: For those who do go around committing crimes, (even those who have never been caught, and therefor have no record), silence is probably a good idea.

 

Are you inferring that I am a criminal?

 

Sure, I have sped and maybe even not obeyed posted hours.

 

There is NEVER a reason to talk to the police.

 

Sure... I will be social and polite as I am with anyone... but once a cop tells me anything I say can and WILL be used against me... time to shut up.

 

I detest blind obedience to "LEO's"

 

Most people use their heads... some use a badge...

Link to comment

Permission or not, this involves first of all, an apparently over-reactive witness, followed by a LEO that is still unaware of a very popular public activity that is now one decade old. To me, that is inexcusable. There is not a police officer in this country that by now should not at least have an inkling of what geocaching is. I don't think that it is being too hard on them to not have a general understanding of our game by now. It makes me wonder what decade old illegal things might be going on under their noses.

 

There may well be extenuating circumstances behind the actual arrest that we don't know (a belligerent attitude on the cacher's behalf, perhaps?) but I find it very hard to see how the arresting officer could justify any action like that after (finally!) understanding what had taken place. It seems that arresting the person that called in the supposed bomb scare would at least have equal liability in this case!

 

Well, I will have to disagree with what you wrote and I bolded. I have taught many officers and bring up geocaching many times and have found very few that know about it. You really think that geocaching is that important when meth labs present a multitude of challenges? Trust me, knowing about geocaching is NOT high on the list of things to know when there is so much more out there that we deal with on a daily basis and need to be experts about. Oh, but "old illegal things might be going on under their noses." We must be pretty dumb in your book until you call us to deal with your problem.

It has been ten years, my friend. TEN. There are news feature stories every week about it, not to mention these bomb scares.

Ten years of bomb scares caused by innocent geocaches, and so many LEOs that don't even have a clue of what it is?

Ten years... one tenth of a century. A child that was born when Dave Ulmer placed that first geocache would be in fifth grade today. Halfway to college.

Remember the Y2K scare? That was ten years ago.

America Online bought out Time-Warner ten years ago. America-Who?

Most of us didn't know who Osama Bin Laden was ten years ago. And he was still in Afghanistan.

Yeah... LEOs should know what Geocaching is by now.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Permission or not, this involves first of all, an apparently over-reactive witness, followed by a LEO that is still unaware of a very popular public activity that is now one decade old. To me, that is inexcusable. There is not a police officer in this country that by now should not at least have an inkling of what geocaching is. I don't think that it is being too hard on them to not have a general understanding of our game by now. It makes me wonder what decade old illegal things might be going on under their noses.

 

There may well be extenuating circumstances behind the actual arrest that we don't know (a belligerent attitude on the cacher's behalf, perhaps?) but I find it very hard to see how the arresting officer could justify any action like that after (finally!) understanding what had taken place. It seems that arresting the person that called in the supposed bomb scare would at least have equal liability in this case!

 

Well, I will have to disagree with what you wrote and I bolded. I have taught many officers and bring up geocaching many times and have found very few that know about it. You really think that geocaching is that important when meth labs present a multitude of challenges? Trust me, knowing about geocaching is NOT high on the list of things to know when there is so much more out there that we deal with on a daily basis and need to be experts about. Oh, but "old illegal things might be going on under their noses." We must be pretty dumb in your book until you call us to deal with your problem.

It has been ten years, my friend. TEN. There are news feature stories every week about it, not to mention these bomb scares.

Ten years of bomb scares caused by innocent geocaches, and so many LEOs that don't even have a clue of what it is?

Ten years... one tenth of a century. A child that was born when Dave Ulmer placed that first geocache would be in fifth grade today. Halfway to college.

Remember the Y2K scare? That was ten years ago.

America Online bought out Time-Warner ten years ago. America-Who?

Most of us didn't know who Osama Bin Laden was ten years ago. And he was still in Afghanistan.

Yeah... LEOs should know what Geocaching is by now.

 

No, not really. Still a totally fringe activity. Heck, we can't even make multiple attempts at printed magazines work. ;) I mean lots of people have dabbled in it (geocaching) a few times. Geocaching.com has 3,000,000 accounts created (half of them never used to find or hide a single cache, in my opinion). Did you ever look at Cacherstats.com? All Geocachers in the entire world with over 200 finds are listed. And there are only 77,000 of them, in the entire world. Totally fringe, man. ;)

Link to comment

Permission or not, this involves first of all, an apparently over-reactive witness, followed by a LEO that is still unaware of a very popular public activity that is now one decade old. To me, that is inexcusable. There is not a police officer in this country that by now should not at least have an inkling of what geocaching is. I don't think that it is being too hard on them to not have a general understanding of our game by now. It makes me wonder what decade old illegal things might be going on under their noses.

 

There may well be extenuating circumstances behind the actual arrest that we don't know (a belligerent attitude on the cacher's behalf, perhaps?) but I find it very hard to see how the arresting officer could justify any action like that after (finally!) understanding what had taken place. It seems that arresting the person that called in the supposed bomb scare would at least have equal liability in this case!

 

Well, I will have to disagree with what you wrote and I bolded. I have taught many officers and bring up geocaching many times and have found very few that know about it. You really think that geocaching is that important when meth labs present a multitude of challenges? Trust me, knowing about geocaching is NOT high on the list of things to know when there is so much more out there that we deal with on a daily basis and need to be experts about. Oh, but "old illegal things might be going on under their noses." We must be pretty dumb in your book until you call us to deal with your problem.

It has been ten years, my friend. TEN. There are news feature stories every week about it, not to mention these bomb scares.

Ten years of bomb scares caused by innocent geocaches, and so many LEOs that don't even have a clue of what it is?

Ten years... one tenth of a century. A child that was born when Dave Ulmer placed that first geocache would be in fifth grade today. Halfway to college.

Remember the Y2K scare? That was ten years ago.

America Online bought out Time-Warner ten years ago. America-Who?

Most of us didn't know who Osama Bin Laden was ten years ago. And he was still in Afghanistan.

Yeah... LEOs should know what Geocaching is by now.

 

No, not really. Still a totally fringe activity. Heck, we can't even make multiple attempts at printed magazines work. ;) I mean lots of people have dabbled in it (geocaching) a few times. Geocaching.com has 3,000,000 accounts created (half of them never used to find or hide a single cache, in my opinion). Did you ever look at Cacherstats.com? All Geocachers in the entire world with over 200 finds are listed. And there are only 77,000 of them, in the entire world. Totally fringe, man. ;)

 

But I knew of geocaching over 7 years ago. Read about it in many magazines and newspapers.

I bought my wife a GPS two years ago so we could cache (based on a news story we both saw 3 years ago)

 

Do the police not follow common news and what is going on in the world?(as the police like to say "ignorance of the law is no excuse")

 

I do not expect the police to know all about geocaching.... but they do need to know of it... a 2 minute seminar wouldn't be to hard.

 

It would also save a ton of money.

Edited by brslk
Link to comment

No, not really. Still a totally fringe activity. Heck, we can't even make multiple attempts at printed magazines work. ;) I mean lots of people have dabbled in it (geocaching) a few times. Geocaching.com has 3,000,000 accounts created (half of them never used to find or hide a single cache, in my opinion). Did you ever look at Cacherstats.com? All Geocachers in the entire world with over 200 finds are listed. And there are only 77,000 of them, in the entire world. Totally fringe, man. ;)

 

Really? Only 77,000?

 

I'm, like, totally happy to be in on the fringe.

 

~WOOT!~

Link to comment
There is NEVER a reason to talk to the police.

That is, quite possibly, the silliest thing I've ever read on these forums. If we pass each other in a store, and I say "Good morning", common courtesy would dictate a reply. At that point, you would be, (gasp!) talking to the police. If common courtesy is too much effort for you, then please disregard. Embrace your paranoia and move on. ;)

Link to comment

There is NEVER a reason to talk to the police.

 

Sure... I will be social and polite as I am with anyone... but once a cop tells me anything I say can and WILL be used against me... time to shut up.

 

I detest blind obedience to "LEO's"

 

Most people use their heads... some use a badge...

There are obvious exceptions to the rule. Relatives and friends, regular contact as part of your job, etc.

 

The time to clam up is when there's an investigation going on. Stopped in your car = investigation. A policeman stops you while you're walking and asks what you were doing in the woods / near the train tracks / under the bridge / in the alley, etc. = investigation. A policeman turns up at your door to "ask a few questions" = investigation.

 

is a good primer on how to handle such situations. I strongly recommend watching it, even if you're a law-abiding citizen. Laws are complex and we don't always know when we can get into trouble. That's what this thread is all about. Some fellow is engaged in perfectly harmless activity and winds up charged with a crime.

 

And when you hear the words "anything you say can and will be used against you", it's past time to shut up. That's the Miranda warning. You get told that after being arrested. Everything in the warning applies before arrest as well. Watch the video.

Link to comment
That's the Miranda warning. You get told that after being arrested.

You get read Miranda when you are being detained and questioned regarding specifics of a crime. This can happen before handcuffs, after handcuffs or not at all. Contrary to what you see on Law & Order, there is no requirement to read Miranda just because you arrest someone.

Link to comment

I would LOVE to read the original arrest report. Anybody in the area where this happened want to go down to the police station and get a copy? If there's a fee for making the copy, I'll pay for it. And I have a web site where I can post the pdf.

 

It's been pointed out before in this thread, but it's worth saying again: We've only heard one side of the story, and even that isn't first-hand.

 

Consider this bit from the original post:

 

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. A few minutes later, they arrested me for Interference with the duties of a public servant.

 

"...they took me back to my car." Followed by "A few minutes later, they arrested me..."

 

Am I the only one that's curious about what happened during those few minutes? "They" wouldn't have taken him back to his car unless they were planning to release him. So what changed "their" mind?

Link to comment
That's the Miranda warning. You get told that after being arrested.

You get read Miranda when you are being detained and questioned regarding specifics of a crime. This can happen before handcuffs, after handcuffs or not at all. Contrary to what you see on Law & Order, there is no requirement to read Miranda just because you arrest someone.

I've never seen Law & Order. Is it any good?

 

Back on topic... I'm familiar with the ins and outs of custodial detention. I was just simplifying it. I didn't want to bog down my post with details regarding detention and rules of evidence. My point was that one's constitutional rights don't suddenly kick in when they hear those words.

 

I merely wanted to press home my message: watch the video. Watch it all. It could keep you from being the next Caleb Osborn.

Link to comment

I don't get the whole "Interference with the duties of a public servant" charge. Short of him trying to clean the egg off his face for trying to hook a guy for doing nothing and cooperating the cop was grasping at straws to try and burn the guy. At the least the cop needs a reprimand if the cacher complied with what he was required.

 

It's a trumped up charge that they apparently can pull out of their pocket just to be obnoxious. No doubt it had a good intent when the law passed. After all when they aren't doing crap like this, they actually do perform a public service that we actually need. No disrespect to CR and CR intended.

Link to comment

...Permission or not, it appears that this cache was placed in a less-than-sensible location. One where cachers COULD be observed searching/replacing the cache, thereby exposing themselves to the consequences - as has happened here....

 

You nailed it. This wasn't a permission problem. Just going about caching hits most of the bullet points they train folks to look for and report. If anyone with a brain observes a cacher they will see something suspicious. Not because the cacher is doing anything at all wrong, or harmful. After all caching is a harmless family friendly and fun activity that does the world some good just by existing. However the behaviors we engage in look a lot like the list of suspicious behavors of folks doing or intending actual wrong in the world.

 

That the officers spoke to the cacher was fine. That they wasted their time with it once the truth of things was known and used a charge that shoudln't stick and wasted their own time by detaining the cacher further even if we was mouthy, just shows us how our system can be abused.

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Link to comment

I want to point out a flaw of those saying that this is somehow the CO's or cache seekers fault because of lack of permission.

 

First you're assuming that he did not have permission, if the owner did not have permission that is bad.

 

But let's assume you do get permission. What does that mean? Well it means that the owner/manager when you hid the cache was aware that it is there. Maybe the manager informed all his workers of the cache. Even under this scenario a turn over in employees over the life of the cache will make that permission worth less and less at no fault of the owner.

 

Lets say under our best case scenario that everyone at the store(or park) knows it is there, that still does not include some paranoid shopper thinking I'm a terroist because I was sneaking around a lamp post or bush.

 

I can understand what the cop did, but once he saw that it was a geocache that should have been it. But to official arrest and book the guy seems extreme (maybe there's more).

 

**The fact that every police force in the nation can have access to a reviewer account makes it even worse.**

 

I agree that based on what we know from the OP and nothing else about this encounter that the LEO's overreacted.

 

I've been caching for over seven years and had dozens of discussions with LEO's about our activity and never had an unpleasant encounter. I have even had mall security and a Duvall County Deputy Sheriff join in the search for the cache. ;)

 

I also had discussions with our local PD when we were hosting Geowoodstock 5 in 2007 to alert them to the possibility of 'unusual activity by people with GPS receivers and flashlights'. I heard of several encounters over the weekend, but none of them unpleasant.

 

1. Caches placed with permission have also been called in as suspicion packages by unknowing civilians who observed someone dancing to the Pink Panther theme song.

 

2. The individual who granted permission may not have told everyone on the staff, or has left the job without mentioning that little detail to their replacement.

 

**3. Huh-where do you get this info? I believe that they are being offered complimentary premium accounts, but certainly not reviewer level access.**

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