NO TRESPASSING WITH OUT PERMISSION

[+The A-Team]

My main thinking is that if everyone else gets away with it to get to the beach, then I'll probably get away with it to get to the cache

I sincerely hope you're joking. "If I don't get caught, it's OK"? A mindset like that is what gets areas banned from geocaching and puts us all in a bad light. Please don't do this.

 

To the OP: No, I wouldn't go past the signs unless it was clearly stated that the cache was placed with permission. Even then, I'd hesitate to do it. I have reported caches in similar situations before ("No trespassing" signs and no permission mentioned in the description), and later found out permission had indeed not been obtained. Once, I did get a cache past a "No trespassing" sign, but only because the CO had explained in his description that the sign was a leftover from before the land was dedicated as park. I fully trusted that CO, but I still confirmed with the town maps that it was indeed parkland before going for it, just to make sure. Even trusted COs can make honest mistakes.

[4wheelin_fool]

Perhaps another question, since there are a few people that work in law enforcement that participate in the forums, would be to ask them if they'd arrest someone for trespassing if they saw them walk right past a Not Trespassing sign.

This is exactly what I'd expect the property owner to do. How would a LEO know the difference?

Austin

He/She would likely ask the proof that permission to be their was obtained. I doubt that, "I know the owner of the property, he said it was okay that I could be here" would be sufficient.

In my area the police do not investigate trespassing complaints unless they are made by the property owner, as it is possible that the person could have permission to be there. There are also many invalid signs which were put up when an area was previously private, but not taken down after the state had purchased it for the Green Acres program. I have also found no trespassing signs put up illegally by nearby residents on public land in an attempt to keep hunters out, although the public have every right to be there. Every situation is different. You can read the cache page and logs for guidance, but sometimes suddenly the land will become posted no trespassing. Just learn to run quickly and carry pepper spray.

Edited April 19, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Glenn]

OK i have one for you all. Let's say you geocaching and run across a cache that's on private propriety. There's sign's that litter the side of the road saying "No trespassing with out permission" for 1/4 of a mile. The cache owner doesn't say they have permission. Would you trespass to get the cache or would you obey the law? Wait, theirs people already entering the land to get ot the beach. Would then go? Some frendly guy tells you "you can go on to the land, they will not do anything" Would you go? interested to see people thoughts on this....

 

Going by just the info you gave I'd leave the area and email the cache owner for clarification. The cache owner may have secured permission for caching beyond the no trespassing signs. Trespassing can be defined as the "unauthorized entry upon the soil of another". If permission is granted then it is no longer unauthorized and also not considered trespassing. It also helps to know the area. I was caching in the very back of a large public park. To continue on the trail I was on I had to go past a couple of no trespassing signs. I knew for sure that I was still inside the park and that the signs were not posted by the park. They were posted by some neighbors to the park that were a little confused about boundaries. But if I wasn't familiar with the park I would have turned around and not looked for those caches that day.

[+Max and 99]

I once went after a brand new cache that specifically stated on the cache page that permission had been granted by the business to place a cache there. I looked and looked, and others looked and looked. Then someone got in TROUBLE by the business where we were looking.

 

Turns out the coords were really bad, and we all thought we were looking where permission had been granted. It left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I'm much more hesitant to go find a cache described like that unless others have been before me.

[+Viajero Perdido]

There are over a million caches on the planet.

 

I'd find another.

[+OZ2CPU]

no one dare to admit they ignored a no tresspassing sign ?

 

I DID !!

 

but I will offcourse not recommend others to do it,

it is clearly a see feel thing,

a cache is per definition checked and approved, and the CO MUST seek permission for its location

and offcurse also a safe route to it, the cache approver can not investigate deep into it, and must thrust a CO,

just like I do.

 

if I find a cache behind a no access sign I normally dont go,

I always complain about it in a DNF or NOTE !!

and if I am very sad about what I see, or if I see a potential risk or problem, i use the NA !

offcourse I double check cache explain and other logs before the NA

 

if a no tresspass sign is VERY old, and there is CLEARLY no one who will be sad about my pressence in the area,

I dont see a huge problem in it.

 

If people could use NM and NA alot more, it will all be alot better.

Edited April 19, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+rockandroll_acdc]

That said, we would not usually post a Needs Archiving post until we give the CO to respond/react. WE might not know the whole story and this gives the CO a chance to correct the situation.

Why wouldn't you post the "Needs Archived"? What happens if the CO doesn't respond/react? Someone with less regard for the rules might give the landowner a very bad impression of the game in the meanwhile, and a NA log does nothing but alert the CO and the Reviewer that there is a possible issue with the cache.

I should of NA. I just emailed the reviewer

[+rockandroll_acdc]

I knew there'd be a lot of self-righteous replies to this question, and I think they've given you lots of good information. But to answer your question honestly, though: sure, if it looked to me like a commonly used path, I'd go, but definitely being prepared to be polite. My main thinking is that if everyone else gets away with it to get to the beach, then I'll probably get away with it to get to the cache, and behind that I'm wondering if all these no trespassing signs are really legit, or just someone trying to discourage use of what's actually a valid right of way.

 

On the plus sign, I've run into several scary looking no trespassing signs on known good access to parks because no one ever took the signs down when the area was opened to the public. On the down sign, someone in my area put a few new caches in some open space not yet opened to the public that was commonly accessed through private property, and the authorities soon started "greeting" the few cachers that went to get them and told them never to come back or else. We're still giving that CO a bad time about shutting down that area.

 

I wouldn't hide anything on the path to the beach, though, because the objections stated here are definitely legitimate, even if it doesn't bother me as much. Someone mentioned home owner association maintained walkways with no trespassing signs, and that's a perfect example to me: I'll walk along those every time, but at the same time I recognize that I'd need to get premission to hide a cache there.

O the signs are legit. See there was a fire back there a few years a go cause by campers, burned two house also. Since then they out up these really nice orange signs on pols saying

NO TRESPASSING WITH OUT PERMISSION

[+ColandNix]

In the UK Trespass is illegal under civil law but not criminal law, having said that I wouldn't ignore the signs and get a cache.

 

I also doubt that land owner's would give permission for a cache to be placed on their land if they'd gone to the trouble of placing "NO TRESPASSING" signs for 1/4 of a mile!

[+Wadcutter]

Here's a reason why one shouldn't trespass. What if the coords are inaccurate? Read the following log. We had posted a Needs Maintenance 3 days earlier because we were pretty sure the coords were off about 1/4 mile. Cache owner posted a note he was positive on the coords. 3 days later another cacher logged the following:

06/20/2009

Super bad coords!!!

Farmer chased us off with a shot gun,

looked like he was going nuts about people

walking around his yard.

I then posted a Needs Archived and the reviewer archived it. The cache owner then posted corrected coords which were off by 1386 ft.

[+dakboy]

NO TRESPASSING WITH OUT PERMISSION

I'm still hung up on this language. By definition, if you have permission, you aren't trespassing! Trespassing is the act of being on property without permission from the owner or lessee.

 

It really ought to be "You may not be on these premises without permission."

[+OZ2CPU]

>Farmer chased us off with a shot gun,

>looked like he was going nuts about people

>walking around his yard

 

what is it with some people ???

surely posting wrong cords is easy and possible, just a simply typo,

and you kind of lead people into getting shoot at !!

it is also possible to calculate puzzle steps wrong, and not aware about it before it is too late.

 

come on !! it can not be correct or legal or even normal behaviour for a person (with a brain)

to start with the shoot gun attitude just becourse two persons walk arround his back yard with a gps,

they should NOT be misunderstood as beeing a thread or danger to his person or property !!

 

what I consider a normal and correct way to act is to go out, and kindly ask if the people are lost ?

need help ? and kindly ask them why they show up at this location, if they got no business here,

ok maybe they explain: we are looking for a hidden tressure, we play a game,

then he can say : this it private property and I dont want you here, and I dont want this game here,

can you please see to no one else play it here, and please remove what ever items are left here too,

thanks in advance people and have a good day.

 

life is just so much better for us all, with a bit positive attitude :-)

even if you dont like or want what you see.

Edited April 19, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+Chokecherry]

I think there are some cultural differences as discussed in previous threads when it comes to trespassing. What goes on in my rural area can't be generalized to urban and certainly not to European countries.

[4wheelin_fool]

NO TRESPASSING WITH OUT PERMISSION

I'm still hung up on this language. By definition, if you have permission, you aren't trespassing! Trespassing is the act of being on property without permission from the owner or lessee.

 

It really ought to be "You may not be on these premises without permission."

 

It means that if you have "out permission", you are still not allowed to be there.

Edited April 19, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+kunarion]

Some property develops "No Trespassing" signs. There may have once been permission, but it was kind of a "hangout", kind of a dumping grounds, so now it's posted. It's unlikely that "Geocachers" were the problem that caused the signs, and the property owner might even still allow Geocachers only, but I won't go unless the cache page mentions the new policy. OK, I have done that once. One cache page said "This is my family's land", no mention of "No Trespassing" signs, and many logs DID mention the signs. The route looked OK to me, just 20 feet into the forest, so I found the cache, signed the log, then noticed the sign on the ground (it had fallen off a tree?). A neighbor slowly drove past as I exited the forest (what timing!), so I waved. He waved back.

 

This topic reminds me that there is a nearby cache with new signs along the road. I'd better go check that out (to see if the entire lot is posted). There's nothing new on the cache page about it.

[+Totem Clan]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching). The conversation went like this.

 

LEO: Do have any ID?

Me: Yes. (handing him my ID)

LEO: Do you know whose land you're one.

Me: Yes, XXXX XXXXX's land.

LEO: Does he know you're out here.

Me: Yes.

 

Then he looked at my name again and realized he knew me or least my dad. Then we talked for about half an hour about the guns I was go out to shoot.

 

I'm sure it would have been much different if my answers had been: No, No, No.

 

Trespassing around here can get a gun pulled on you. Ranchers don't take kind to folks bothering their livestock by tromping through the field. That's their money. How would you feel if someone walked into your workplace unannounced and rummaged through all your files or scattered around all your tools? That's no different than going on to a farmer/rancher's uninvited.

 

Save yourself the trouble don't trespass.

[+AustinMN]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching). The conversation went like this.

 

LEO: Do have any ID?

Me: Yes. (handing him my ID)

LEO: Do you know whose land you're one.

Me: Yes, XXXX XXXXX's land.

LEO: Does he know you're out here.

Me: Yes.

 

If this happened on my land, I would have then asked him why he was there, and if he had probable cause. Seeing someone on posted land is not probable cause. It would likely have led to a disciplinary situation for the officer, as the "No Trespassing" applies to them as well (barring probable cause).

 

I'm not trying to justify trespassing on posted property. I don't do it, and I don't condone it. But at least in the United States, there are very real limits on when law enforcement can and cannot take action. Seeing someone on posted property is not one of them, unless special arrangements have been made. In those cases, special wording on the signage will reflect it.

 

In my state, there are even sets of circumstances that allow armed citizens to enter posted private property for a specific purpose without obtaining permission.

 

Austin

[+dprovan]

My main thinking is that if everyone else gets away with it to get to the beach, then I'll probably get away with it to get to the cache

I sincerely hope you're joking. "If I don't get caught, it's OK"? A mindset like that is what gets areas banned from geocaching and puts us all in a bad light. Please don't do this.

Don't be silly. If someone asks, I'm going to tell them I'm going to the beach, just like everyone else. It actually isn't relevant to them or to my decision that I'll happen to be geocaching instead of swimming.

[+Totem Clan]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching). The conversation went like this.

 

LEO: Do have any ID?

Me: Yes. (handing him my ID)

LEO: Do you know whose land you're one.

Me: Yes, XXXX XXXXX's land.

LEO: Does he know you're out here.

Me: Yes.

 

If this happened on my land, I would have then asked him why he was there, and if he had probable cause. Seeing someone on posted land is not probable cause. It would likely have led to a disciplinary situation for the officer, as the "No Trespassing" applies to them as well (barring probable cause).

 

I'm not trying to justify trespassing on posted property. I don't do it, and I don't condone it. But at least in the United States, there are very real limits on when law enforcement can and cannot take action. Seeing someone on posted property is not one of them, unless special arrangements have been made. In those cases, special wording on the signage will reflect it.

 

In my state, there are even sets of circumstances that allow armed citizens to enter posted private property for a specific purpose without obtaining permission.

 

Austin

He was at the edge of the land. He saw my vehicle parked along side the road and ran a check. I saw him and walked back just to clear eveything up.

[+CanadianRockies]

In my state, there are even sets of circumstances that allow armed citizens to enter posted private property for a specific purpose without obtaining permission.

In some U.S. states, trespassing laws don't apply to hunters who are going after a dead or wounded animal. On the other hand, there are some areas where penalties are greater if the trespasser is armed.

 

For geocachers, it's wise to understand the national, regional, and local laws regarding trespassing.

[+AustinMN]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching).

 

He was at the edge of the land. He saw my vehicle parked along side the road and ran a check. I saw him and walked back just to clear eveything up.

 

Which is it?

 

Austin

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

In my area the police do not investigate trespassing complaints unless they are made by the property owner, as it is possible that the person could have permission to be there. There are also many invalid signs which were put up when an area was previously private, but not taken down after the state had purchased it for the Green Acres program. I have also found no trespassing signs put up illegally by nearby residents on public land in an attempt to keep hunters out, although the public have every right to be there. Every situation is different. You can read the cache page and logs for guidance, but sometimes suddenly the land will become posted no trespassing. Just learn to run quickly and carry pepper spray.

 

I find this to be fairly common. Green Acres/State buys the land, and never takes down the No Trespassing signs. Fortunately, most of the cachrs have explained the situation. I especially liked the State Green Acres sign nailed right into the No Trespassing sign from the hunt club. One has to use discretion.

Then again, I was questioned by the Brigantine Beach Police for standing on a bridge in Atlantic City. (There was supposed to be a benchmark on the bridge!) Haven't figured out the jurisdictional concerns there. Oh, well.

[+Totem Clan]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching).

 

He was at the edge of the land. He saw my vehicle parked along side the road and ran a check. I saw him and walked back just to clear eveything up.

 

Which is it?

 

Austin

 

Oh come on. You know what I mean.

 

I'm sorry oh great and glorious wordsmith that have used word that has so confused your mind.

 

[+Chrysalides]

It really ought to be "You may not be on these premises without permission."

Seems like a simple "No Trespassing" would do.

[Clan Riffster]

If this happened on my land, I would have then asked him why he was there, and if he had probable cause.

We don't need probable cause to hold a conversation, or to request ID.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[+AustinMN]

If this happened on my land, I would have then asked him why he was there, and if he had probable cause.

We don't need probable cause to hold a conversation, or to request ID.

 

You need probable cause to come on to my land. My being there is not probable cause.

[+AustinMN]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching).

 

He was at the edge of the land. He saw my vehicle parked along side the road and ran a check. I saw him and walked back just to clear eveything up.

 

Which is it?

 

Austin

 

Oh come on. You know what I mean.

 

I'm sorry oh great and glorious wordsmith that have used word that has so confused your mind.

 

 

Yes, I do now. Your first post was deliberately distorted, and that became clear with your second. You were not approached by law enforcement. You approached them.

Austin

Edited April 20, 2012 by AustinMN

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching).

 

He was at the edge of the land. He saw my vehicle parked along side the road and ran a check. I saw him and walked back just to clear eveything up.

 

Which is it?

 

Austin

 

Oh come on. You know what I mean.

 

I'm sorry oh great and glorious wordsmith that have used word that has so confused your mind.

 

 

Yes, I do now. Your first post was deliberately distorted, and that became clear with your second. You were not approached by law enforcement. You approached them.

Austin

 

Deliberately distorted? Give me a break.

 

I don't know how *you* define approach but it seems to me that there was some approaching from both directions. When the LEO pulled off the road to run TCs license plate he was approaching first, the TC approached the LEO, which led to what sounded like a pleasant discussion.

[+AustinMN]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching).

 

He was at the edge of the land. He saw my vehicle parked along side the road and ran a check. I saw him and walked back just to clear eveything up.

 

Which is it?

 

Austin

 

Oh come on. You know what I mean.

 

I'm sorry oh great and glorious wordsmith that have used word that has so confused your mind.

 

 

Yes, I do now. Your first post was deliberately distorted, and that became clear with your second. You were not approached by law enforcement. You approached them.

Austin

 

Deliberately distorted? Give me a break.

 

I don't know how *you* define approach but it seems to me that there was some approaching from both directions. When the LEO pulled off the road to run TCs license plate he was approaching first, the TC approached the LEO, which led to what sounded like a pleasant discussion.

 

In his first post, what he described was a cop breaking the law.

What actually happened was a cop doing his job.

 

What part of this do you not understand?

 

Austin

[+The A-Team]

Rather than nitpicking the wording of the posts of others, maybe it would be better to get back on topic: the matter of posted land and permission or lack of for geocaching.

On the other hand, if this topic is going to continue as it is, IBTL.

[+dprovan]

Here's an example that just came up for me today. Right near where I wanted to go caching, there was a very large, mostly empty parking lot servicing several shopping and eating establishments, perfect for stashing my car while I walked around elsewhere. The only hitch was that this parking lot had signs that said, "Private property, for patrons only." Should I have parked there? Should someone hide a cache there? How does this example compare to the path to the beach we're talking about?

[+ngrrfan]

Here's an example that just came up for me today. Right near where I wanted to go caching, there was a very large, mostly empty parking lot servicing several shopping and eating establishments, perfect for stashing my car while I walked around elsewhere. The only hitch was that this parking lot had signs that said, "Private property, for patrons only." Should I have parked there? Should someone hide a cache there? How does this example compare to the path to the beach we're talking about?

This is simple..... go buy something and then go for a walk.

When we're out on a run and stop at someplace that has restrooms, like a gas station/quickie mart, or fast food place, I'll buy something cheap. The restrooms are for patrons and since I am using them I feel obligated to buy a little something.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

In my area the police do not investigate trespassing complaints unless they are made by the property owner, as it is possible that the person could have permission to be there. There are also many invalid signs which were put up when an area was previously private, but not taken down after the state had purchased it for the Green Acres program. I have also found no trespassing signs put up illegally by nearby residents on public land in an attempt to keep hunters out, although the public have every right to be there. Every situation is different. You can read the cache page and logs for guidance, but sometimes suddenly the land will become posted no trespassing. Just learn to run quickly and carry pepper spray.

 

I find this to be fairly common. Green Acres/State buys the land, and never takes down the No Trespassing signs. Fortunately, most of the cachrs have explained the situation. I especially liked the State Green Acres sign nailed right into the No Trespassing sign from the hunt club. One has to use discretion.

Then again, I was questioned by the Brigantine Beach Police for standing on a bridge in Atlantic City. (There was supposed to be a benchmark on the bridge!) Haven't figured out the jurisdictional concerns there. Oh, well.

Although the signs don't come down when they should, sometimes the land is NOT purchased by the Green Acres program, but still has the signage. Often the right to prevent it from being developed is purchased, but the property is still privately owned and off limits. The Green Acres sign does not always mean public property. There is farmland in Vincentown as an example. The Green Acres program did not buy the property, but only paid the farmer to permanently keep it as farmland and block them from selling it to developers. Every situation is different, but since the property owner is the only one that can call the police, there really is not too much to worry about as long as there isn't a house there..

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching).

 

He was at the edge of the land. He saw my vehicle parked along side the road and ran a check. I saw him and walked back just to clear eveything up.

 

Which is it?

 

Austin

 

Oh come on. You know what I mean.

 

I'm sorry oh great and glorious wordsmith that have used word that has so confused your mind.

 

 

Yes, I do now. Your first post was deliberately distorted, and that became clear with your second. You were not approached by law enforcement. You approached them.

Austin

 

Deliberately distorted? Give me a break.

 

I don't know how *you* define approach but it seems to me that there was some approaching from both directions. When the LEO pulled off the road to run TCs license plate he was approaching first, the TC approached the LEO, which led to what sounded like a pleasant discussion.

 

In his first post, what he described was a cop breaking the law.

What actually happened was a cop doing his job.

 

What part of this do you not understand?

 

Austin

 

That part where you're making a big deal about the wording that was used. The fact the TC wrote "I have been approaching by LEO" tells me that he wasn't paying a lot of attention to sentence construction but just trying to describe an experience that was relevant to the topic.

 

I also noticed that he didn't say where the conversation took place. The LEO could have approached Totem Clan without actually crossing over the private property, and TC could have approached the LEO without crossing the property line to where his vehicle was parked. Your use of the phrase "deliberately distorted" makes it sound like TC was intentionally trying to deceive us about how the incident went down, when all he was doing was describe s scenario when he was on private property without permission when resulted in a pleasant conversation with a LEO.

[+dprovan]

Here's an example that just came up for me today. Right near where I wanted to go caching, there was a very large, mostly empty parking lot servicing several shopping and eating establishments, perfect for stashing my car while I walked around elsewhere. The only hitch was that this parking lot had signs that said, "Private property, for patrons only." Should I have parked there? Should someone hide a cache there? How does this example compare to the path to the beach we're talking about?

This is simple..... go buy something and then go for a walk.

That's not the point, of course. What if I'm broke? What if everything's closed? What if all the stores have moved out?

 

Yesterday, I really just didn't feel like it and didn't want to spend the time, but that's really not relevant to the question. What I'm looking for is the ethical comparison between using a parking lot and using a popular though not entirely legal path.

[+Totem Clan]

I have been approaching by LEO while on private property once (not while caching).

 

He was at the edge of the land. He saw my vehicle parked along side the road and ran a check. I saw him and walked back just to clear eveything up.

 

Which is it?

 

Austin

 

Oh come on. You know what I mean.

 

I'm sorry oh great and glorious wordsmith that have used word that has so confused your mind.

 

 

Yes, I do now. Your first post was deliberately distorted, and that became clear with your second. You were not approached by law enforcement. You approached them.

Austin

 

Deliberately distorted? Give me a break.

 

I don't know how *you* define approach but it seems to me that there was some approaching from both directions. When the LEO pulled off the road to run TCs license plate he was approaching first, the TC approached the LEO, which led to what sounded like a pleasant discussion.

 

In his first post, what he described was a cop breaking the law.

What actually happened was a cop doing his job.

 

What part of this do you not understand?

 

Austin

 

That part where you're making a big deal about the wording that was used. The fact the TC wrote "I have been approaching by LEO" tells me that he wasn't paying a lot of attention to sentence construction but just trying to describe an experience that was relevant to the topic.

 

I also noticed that he didn't say where the conversation took place. The LEO could have approached Totem Clan without actually crossing over the private property, and TC could have approached the LEO without crossing the property line to where his vehicle was parked. Your use of the phrase "deliberately distorted" makes it sound like TC was intentionally trying to deceive us about how the incident went down, when all he was doing was describe s scenario when he was on private property without permission when resulted in a pleasant conversation with a LEO.

...... or I could just be using the word in an manner that is fully accepted in English and is even in the dictionary.

 

approach v tr

 

3. To make a proposal or overtures to with a specific end in view: approached the administration for a raise.

It's not my fault if your vocabulary is so limited as render other's use of your native tongue vague and incomprehensible.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+Sky King 36]

Alternatively, one could just go out at night, remove all the "No Tresspassing" signs, and then go get the cache.

[+Mitragorz]

I was caught trespassing a few weeks ago. There's an old quarter horse track by me that's got a few caches in it. It adjoins county parkland that also has some caches in it. I parked on a street adjacent to the old racetrack, which is private property and bordered with "No Trespassing" signs. You can't miss them. I ignored them (I thought the land was county parkland), and climbed over the dirt berms that were there to keep trucks from entering the property (which is all flatland now, the track is long-since gone). It's still used for illegal ATV riding.

 

Anyway, I crossed through the private property to get to the parkland, because I'm lazy and parking at the proper access point would've made for a long hike, and I didn't have time. So I found most of the caches I wanted to find and made my way back to my truck. Where I was parked, it was blatantly obvious where I was. I was on the phone with my dad at the time, climbed back over the berm and a cop was just pulling up. I said "Dad, let me call you back, there's cops here." There was one already parked down the street, next to my truck. I was dressed like a hiker and was carrying a water bottle. The cop didn't even get out, I walked up to him. He asked me what I was doing, and I told him I was hiking. Then he asked who I was on the phone with, and I said it was my father. Then he wanted my ID, so I gave it to him, and he asked if that was my truck. I told him it was. Then he asked why I came all the way from *Town* to go hiking here, and I gave him the Geocaching spiel. It seemed like he had heard of it. He asked if I had seen anyone else back there, and I said that I heard some ATVs, but didn't actually see them. Didn't see any trucks either. He pointed to the "No Trespassing" sign and said they're trying to crack down on the illegal off-roading there, and said that they would never really give someone like me a hard time for hiking the property. I told him that I thought it was parkland (at the time, I really did. I thought the racetrack property was taken over my the county) but he said that's a big misconception, and that it's still private. Oh well, we wished each other a nice afternoon and went our separate ways.

 

I've heard (and seen) that hikers get a great deal of leniency from law enforcement. No harm, no foul kind thing. Would I blatantly trespass? No. But if there's a thin line between public/private, I won't get my panties in a bunch over it. If it's someone's house, yeah, that a different story. But if it's an abandoned racetrack that's been vacant for a quarter century... Eh... There are still more caches there that I need to find.

[+dakboy]

It really ought to be "You may not be on these premises without permission."

Seems like a simple "No Trespassing" would do.

That would also ba appropriate.

 

But "no trespassing without permission" is just non-sensical.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I've heard (and seen) that hikers get a great deal of leniency from law enforcement. No harm, no foul kind thing. Would I blatantly trespass? No. But if there's a thin line between public/private, I won't get my panties in a bunch over it. If it's someone's house, yeah, that a different story. But if it's an abandoned racetrack that's been vacant for a quarter century... Eh... There are still more caches there that I need to find.

 

This has been my experience as well - most LEO's are pretty relaxed about someone who is obviously hiking and not causing problems, although they do take down your name, driver's license, etc. in case any crimes are later reported in the area at that time. (And because they are thorough.)

 

However, this isn't true 100% of the time. I was hiking around a nature education center at night several years ago, and the local police were extremely upset about it. Several cars showed up (it was a sunday night, I can only assume they were bored out of their minds), and they proceeded to tell me that I was not allowed to be in there after dark. So I pointed at the sign on the gate where I was parked: "After hours access for hiking allowed." They were surprised by this, and taken aback a bit, but then they admitted that they were happy I'd come out, because they *really* didn't want to have to go hiking around the place looking for me, and had been arguing about which officer would have to go. lol.

 

We talked for a while and I am pretty sure they concluded that I was certifiably insane, but harmless.

 

I assume, though, that had I actually been trespassing, they'd have given me a bad time about it. They sure acted like they wanted to.

[Clan Riffster]

If this happened on my land, I would have then asked him why he was there, and if he had probable cause.

We don't need probable cause to hold a conversation, or to request ID.

 

You need probable cause to come on to my land. My being there is not probable cause.

No. I don't. If you want to pretend to know the law, you should at least do some research before you try arguing with someone who has been a cop for several decades. I enter a couple dozen yards a day without probable cause. I've been doing so since 1982, without any sanctions taken against me.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Most will, some won't.

 

When I hid my Irondale Park cache years ago I didn't see a No Trespassing sign that was covered up by overgrown brush. It was there for quite some time, many months, before a cacher mentioned the sign. I went and looked and indeed the cache was about 20' past the old rusted overgrown sign. We pulled the brush back so the sign could be seen.

 

I had gotten our city Park Superintendent's permission for the hide and had given his contact info to the Reviewer when I hid it, but I went back to the Superintendent and asked about the sign. He said don't worry about it, it was old and no longer enforced and was along what had become a well-traveled back-entrance footpath into the park that residents of the adjoining neighborhood used.

 

The cache stayed in place for a couple of years, was found many times and I think two cachers mentioned that they would not go past the sign. Everyone else ignored it.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

When I hid my Irondale Park cache years ago I didn't see a No Trespassing sign that was covered up by overgrown brush. It was there for quite some time, many months, before a cacher mentioned the sign. I went and looked and indeed the cache was about 20' past the old rusted overgrown sign. We pulled the brush back so the sign could be seen.

 

This wouldn't have stopped me either, although such things are worrisome. A half buried sign, with no evidence of others, without a fence or gate wouldn't really give me pause, especially if I were within 20' of the cache. If it were more like 200' I'd probably pause and look at maps and stuff and just make sure that as best I could tell, I was still on park land when I crossed.

 

It's really not uncommon to see stuff like that in a park that's purchased old farm / ranchland. It can be tricky in a place like that, where there are both old, no longer valid fences and signage, as well as posted, valid, enforced fences and signage for adjacent property. It's especially tricky if borders of the park aren't well documented. In a situation like that, if I legitimately can't tell whether or not I'd be trespassing, I don't really worry about it. If there is any evidence, though, that the signage or fencing is current and/or maintained, I won't pass it.