Spotted this article on damage to a historic site.

[+colleda]

I apologize for stepping into a discussion gone off-topic, but there's another consideration of this whole "geocaching is against the law in Tennessee" discussion. Specifically, it seems that (despite the unsubstantiated rumor to the contrary), geocaching actually is almost *never* illegal in Tennessee cemeteries.

 

First, it's important to note the context of this state law, the "Cemetery Act of 2006". It was enacted during the emotional, and horrifying, mistreatment of customers by one Clayton Smart, who is now in prison for what is likely to be the rest of his natural life. I won't go into it here, but it's some interesting reading if you would like to pursue this tangent with Google searches. He bought up multiple cemeteries in MI and TN, and then tried to renege on pre-sold burial contracts and maintenance, then trying to file BK to protect his once-significant personal assets. Not good, for anyone.

 

Noting the intended target of this legislation, it is important to note that this legislation specifies that:

"46-1-101.

(a) The provisions of this chapter apply to all cemeteries, community and

public mausoleums, whether operated for profit or not for profit, within the state of

Tennessee, except cemeteries exempt under §46-1-106.

 

... and what, you might ask, falls under the exemptions of TCA 46-1-106? Well, that would be ...

 

"46-1-106.

(a) The provisions of this chapter and chapter 2 of this title do not apply

to:

(1) Cemeteries owned by municipalities;

(2) Cemeteries owned by churches, associations of churches, or

church governing bodies;

(3) Cemeteries owned by religious organizations;

(4) Family burial grounds; or

(5) Cemeteries owned by general welfare corporations created by

special act of the general assembly ... "

 

Thus, THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO CEMETERIES RUN BY A TOWN, A CHURCH OR RELATED TO A CHURCH, A FAMILY, OR ANYBODY ELSE WITH SPECIFIC PERMISSION. Ultimately, it applied to very few operators not named "Clayton Smart", but it also penned him in so he couldn't wiggle into some new manifestation of fiduciary default.

 

********************

 

OK, so the "Cemetery Act of 2006" doesn't apply to many cemeteries. Now, what is a "game of amusement"? Let's look at a legal definition:

 

"Amusement game is any game that provides entertainment or amusement. Amusement games conducted as part of gaming, by licensed organizations, are usually games of chances. Prizes money may be received. The outcome is unpredictable.

 

The following is an example of state statute (Washington) defining the term.

 

Pursuant to [Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9.46.0201] "Amusement game," as used in this chapter, means a game played for entertainment in which:

 

(1) The contestant actively participates;

 

(2) The outcome depends in a material degree upon the skill of the contestant;

 

(3) Only merchandise prizes are awarded;

 

(4) The outcome is not in the control of the operator;

 

(5) The wagers are placed, the winners are determined, and a distribution of prizes or property is made in the presence of all persons placing wagers at such game; and

 

(6) Said game is conducted or operated by any agricultural fair, person, association, or organization in such manner and at such locations as may be authorized by rules and regulations adopted by the commission pursuant to this chapter as now or hereafter amended.

 

Cake walks as commonly known and fish ponds as commonly known shall be treated as amusement games for all purposes under this chapter."

 

**************************

And finally, the actual language of the statute itself, taking into account "Game of Amusement" definition and the context of the full verbiage:

 

"46-1-313.

(a) No person shall willfully destroy, deface, or injure any monument,

tomb, gravestone, or other structure placed in the cemetery, or any roadway,

walk, fence or enclosure in or around the same, or injure any tree, plant or shrub

therein, or hunt or shoot therein, play at any game or amusement therein, or

loiter for lascivious or lewd purposes therein, or interfere, by words or actions,

with any funeral procession or any religious exercises.

( B )

(1) A violation of this section is a Class E felony."

 

**************************

 

In short, then, it seems that the "Tennessee Cemetery Act of 2006" specifically proscribes gambling in cemeteries owned by Clayton Smart or any other profiteering weasel. Other than that, it has no impact on geocaching in general or in historic church/town/family cemeteries in particular.

 

It seems that reviewers in Tennessee (particularly over here in the Memphis area, where there are still some understandably raw nerves given the recent experience with Mr. Smart) have already taken an unnecessarily cautious approach to reviewing cemetery caches. It would be an overreach for them, or anybody else, to take any further action based on the Tennessee Codes Annotated as discussed here.

 

What Keystone said.

[+MorWoods]

 

What Keystone said.

 

Sure, thanks for your input, it was very helpful. Except his response was to sort of legitimize/minimize a misinterpretation of a law that sets a precedent within the geocaching community, directly related to the topic at hand. So, yeah. He posted while I was composing about ... decomposing? Now that the legal issues are refuted, I fully agree, let's get back on topic.

[+hzoi]

Back to the original article: from the photos on the archived cache, I think it's pretty obvious that the dry stone wall there is not part of the actual ruins.

 

 

Cache wall: dry stone stacked up, no attempt at uniformity in stone size or shape, scratches from the owner's spoiler photo (taken at the time the cache was hidden) show the stones had been placed relatively recently (and not just moved by the cache owner; there's no reason that big heavy stone on top would need to be moved to hide a micro). This is clearly not a Roman wall, but a recent construction to edge off the parking area.

 

 

Walls within ruin site: organized walls made of like-sized and -shaped stones, no signs of recent movement whatsoever, apparently inside a protected area. Looks like a reconstruction of a ruin.

 

 

Ruin walls: clearly roped off and seemingly mortared together, or at least cemented in place by dirt and then later excavated.

 

A more accurate headline may have been "Modern stone wall we put up next to a parking lot near Roman ruins at risk from geocaching."

 

Either way, it's clear the cache was not something the authorities wanted on site, and either way it's best it was archived. But it would have been nice if the article got the facts better.

 

(p.s., MorWoods, I concur with some of your analysis, that law is stacked with loopholes. However, gambling appears to be a subset of "game of amusement," which by itself would appear to cover geocaching if it is done in a cemetery to which the chapter applies.)

Edited October 7, 2015 by hzoi