Jump to content

Emergency Cache Archival Needed


Recommended Posts

From the article listed above, it says "According to the Web site, www.geocaching.com, 463 people had visited the site since items were first hidden there on April 14, 2002."

 

Only 463???

The cache site, not the web site. I'm sure it was taken from the "Logged Visits (463 total. Visit the Gallery)" text on the cache page.

Link to comment
I was asked, not once but two or three times, what kind of name 'Furr' was. I told them "Well, German, originally." (This caused a couple of them to immediately think I *was* German.) I was then asked for my ethnic descent, and I told them "Well, some German, some Scotch-Irish, etc., etc., but my family on both sides has been over here since the mid-1700's..." They cut me off and said "Oh, so you're an American citizen?" This was *after* I'd given them my driver's license and Social Security number.

 

When all is said and done, I wish I'd gotten them to listen to what I said about the geocaching.com website basically explaining what I was doing there instead of it taking at least two hours before they finally went off to look at it on their computer. I *really* wish I hadn't had to spend so much time telling them what I was doing and then hearing them go out and translate it so badly into something that made me sound like much more of a nutcase than I am. (It was sort of like playing a game of Telephone, where you whisper something in someone's ear, and they whisper it in the ear of the next person, and so on around the room, until at the end what the last person reports having heard is *nothing* like what the first person actually said.)

 

These guys may be polite and professional, but they don't sound very bright.

 

According to the article, the French citizen was doing some planespotting, writing down airplane ID numbers in a game similar to trainspotting. Makes me wonder why I kept getting a version in which the guy had much more sinister motives

 

It almost seems like airport security people, given their profession, should be up to speed on things like geocaching and planespotting, or at least familiar with the fact that they exist.

Link to comment

This makes me think. Should this website post a section on the home page specifically for law enforcement so they can have info in one place when they come to the site? Would this look too "canned" for them? Just a thought.

Lemur, I'm glad you are ok. That could have been any one of us. Peace.

Link to comment

Ahhh, it wasn't quite worded quite that way and afer I posted, I thought maybe that's what they meant. Should have had more coffee and checked it first.

 

Funny how stories change around, like the foreign national incident. Big difference from what was first reported as whet he was doing and what he actually was doing. Maybe the planespotting game/hobby isn't such a good idea in these times.

Link to comment
Glad you came through un-Rodney King'ed.  Keeping your cool is a good thing!

 

Now, one question I haven't seen asked -- did you log it as a find?  :huh:  I know I would!

 

Yep. I mean, I'd signed the logbook and replaced the cache and walked fifty yards away when I was stopped. Even though at the end of the debacle the cache was in my possession as I left police custody, at the time I found the cache it was right where it was supposed to be and I logged it properly. What happened afterwards doesn't change that. :D

 

-- Lemur

Link to comment
Woof. That's a pretty scary article. Especially the bit about tallying the costs and making the cacher pay for the investigation. When that bit was mentioned to me in passing toward the end of *my* ordeal, I quietly, internally, freaked out, but continued right on saying "I am very sorry, sir, I was an idiot, I didn't think." ... and it wasn't mentioned again.

 

Is it just me, or is it wierd that somone committing a crime is not required to pay for any law enforcement costs involved in bringing them to justice, and here are two people who have done nothing illegal who may have to pay?

 

All I can say is, glad I don't live in an area where things like this happen. I wouldn't be playing this game if I did.

 

Regardsm

Anthony

Link to comment

I know the cache in question VERY well...I must have stopped at it to swap TBs no less than 6 times during various business trips to L.A. during the last year to year-and-a-half. I parked at the same nearby dead end street location as the others and walked over to process the cache and TBs, and although I too saw the local walkers/joggers along that blocked-off-from-cars-but-not-pedestrians street, I couldn't help but think that what ultimately happened to Lemur could just as easily happened to me (a 6'3", 300 lb, bearded guy). The map shown elsewhere on this thread reflects the location VERY accurately...you're literally adjacent and facing one of the main takeoff/landing runways of LAX. Frankly I'm surprised the cache lasted as long as it did without removal due to this proximity.

 

As others have said, I'm sad that this happened to you, Lemur (it could have been any one of us!), and glad you were able to keep your cool and come out of the ordeal OK, and I also agree with you that the various law enforcement authorities' personnel you dealt with were merely doing their jobs.

 

Lesson learned (the hard way for Lemur, unfortunately!), for all of us.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

Link to comment

The cache itself was located on airport property, and Northside Parkway, the road the cache is along side, is posted closed and off-limits by the FBI. Hence the convoluted parking instructions for the cache.

Just to shed some light on the matter. When the cache was placed, the area was NOT off-limits. Joggers, walkers, and the homeless could be found strolling around the area all the time. The parking instuctions where proved the nearest legal parking in the area that was closest to the cache.

 

I don't see how the approval of this cache is the fault of the Cache Approvers.

 

Some time around earlier this year, the airport started posting signs prohibiting access to certain areas belonging to the airport. I don't ever recall seeing a sign the last time I visited this cache (3-4 months ago)... I'll probably swing by tonight for a look.

Link to comment

The cache itself was located on airport property, and Northside Parkway, the road the cache is along side, is posted closed and off-limits by the FBI. Hence the convoluted parking instructions for the cache.

Just to shed some light on the matter. When the cache was placed, the area was NOT off-limits. Joggers, walkers, and the homeless could be found strolling around the area all the time. The parking instuctions where proved the nearest legal parking in the area that was closest to the cache.

 

I don't see how the approval of this cache is the fault of the Cache Approvers.

 

Some time around earlier this year, the airport started posting signs prohibiting access to certain areas belonging to the airport. I don't ever recall seeing a sign the last time I visited this cache (3-4 months ago)... I'll probably swing by tonight for a look.

I agree...when I first found the cache I too wondered why/how it got approved, but then as I looked around it became clear that this road was indeed previously an open and publicly available and accessible location. Even though they later closed the road to cars, the fact that it was still available to pedestrians made it so that the cache was certainly still viable. I don't fault the approvers nor the hider (case in point: look how many incident-free visits this cache got!)...this is just one of those situations where a cache location "evolved" into its ultimate outcome.

 

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

-Dave R.

Link to comment
Glad to see that you are back home in Vermont Lemur. My Mom, sister and I were in LA last February visiting family that live 2 miles from this cache, and I actually drove to the parking spot for this cache. We were intent on finding it, but the area seemed a bit busy to us and we would probably be observed while finding the cache. So we headed over to the Chop and Stamp Geocache nearby. GCH9R1 Chop & Stamp This cache was on an abandoned street and up a small hill overlooking the runways on one side and the ocean on the other side. What a great spot! The road (Sandpiper St.) was closed to traffic at the time, but we could walk up to the cache. There were high fences on both sides and at the end of the street with barbed wire on the top. The cache was a small tin placed under a cement barrier. The planes were landing from the ocean that day and they would fly right over our heads. This cache has been turned into a Virtual now. I guess there must be signs in the area now forbidding all access to this area. We have been discussing cache labeling and placement on our local forum, and someone mentioned this article just out today. Bomb scare turns out to be part of Internet game. Lets all be careful out there, and think about cache labeling and placement in this time of heightened security.

YOU!! :huh: YOU!!! :D YOU!!! B)

 

That's why my beloved cache is now archived!!!! You spilled the beans!!!! (j/k)

 

Back in March TPTB at the LAX decided to close this area off foot traffic. When I discovered this, that weekend I made a mad dash to retieve the cache and changed it to a virtual (the cache designation was still a traditional). This place was a great place for plane spotting. Joggers and bikers STILL use Sandpiper Street despite the sign.

 

This morning I got a e-mail notifying me the cache has been archived. I've been expecting this for quite a while. Back in March I was warned by Hemlock that I may be forced to archive the cache because I changed the nature of the cache (traditional to virtual).

 

Given the problems I've heard about the area, I think it is best to steer clear of LAX - I will NOT be placing a virtual to replace it.

 

John Doe

Link to comment

Not sure why it didn't cross my mind until now, but I also have a cache adjacent to the local airport. However, it's a micro in a spot where the locals regularly go to watch the planes take off and land. My Uncle used to take me there as a kid.

 

Only a true idiot would consider that tiny cache a threat... ;)

Link to comment

I must admit that when I visitied this cache to drop of the MLS bug, I had similar thoughts about the appropriateness of the location, given today's current climate.

 

However! I find I also have to agree with javaa...

 

Why don't our highly-trained, well prepared police officers (not to mention FBI officials!) already KNOW about Geocaching? And FOUR hours? I've explained the concept of Geocaching to happy-hour folk over a brewsky in under a minute, and THEY got it ("Oh, it's a hi-tech treasure hunt. You must be a geek...")

 

I'm glad it ended well - it could have been much worse (like if Lemur actually were a geocacher of middle-eastern descent...)

 

pinot

Link to comment

This situation destroyed one of my pre-existing notions about authorities and cache placement. I visited Grand Central last year when there were only 200 or so posts. I was a little worried at first, but I guessed that any cache that had 200 or so posts would have to be known to authorities, so it would be fine. If there was any reasonable amount of security on that perimeter, they would have seen at least one of the first 200 visitors and learned of the cache. I am literaly shocked to learn that this wasn't the case.

 

I also thought I saw a survellance camera on one of the light posts in the area (SW of the cache covering the whole east part of the closed ramp). That would have made some sense to use such things in that area. I even waved to the alleged camera, and I was there about 45 minutes after sunset. I left that area thinking that the airport authority was cool to handle their security in a manner that let ordinary people alone. And they did let us (and planespotters and joggers) alone until this week, although they apparently didn't mean to.

 

I'm glad the O&L got out OK. Four hours and handcuffs seem excessive to me and I wonder if he isn't being too good a sport about that. It could have been worse, but the officers could have read the cache sheet in the cache (one was there when I visited) or in O&L's possession (if he was carrying one) and handled this in fifteen minutes.

 

I also appreciate Sparrowhawk's efforts for that cache, both his maintance help and the parking info. That discussion last week seemed a bit harsh, but helping another cacher out is always cool.

 

Even if circumstances and rules have changed since it was originally placed, I see no errors in leaving it grandfathered in the system nor in visiting it while it was active.

 

Is it just me, or is it wierd that somone committing a crime is not required to pay for any law enforcement costs involved in bringing them to justice, and here are two people who have done nothing illegal who may have to pay?

 

What does the gentleman think "court costs" are? Innocent people don't have to pay them, but guilty people do. Note from O&L's telling, the "tough guy cop" said "I wish we could bill...". This seemed to be after they realized they couldn't because it would be tough to successfully prosecute someone for being the 400+th visitor to that cache. Note in the Indiana stories that the sheriff was going to "tally the costs and talk to the prosecutor". My layperson knowledge of such things says that you can't force payment of such a bill without convicting the cacher of a crime. I was concerned about the Indiana deal, since his threat to collect costs implied that charges would be filed, but that threat is hopefully dissapating.

Link to comment

I'm glad the O&L got out OK. Four hours and handcuffs seem excessive to me and I wonder if he isn't being too good a sport about that. It could have been worse, but the officers could have read the cache sheet in the cache (one was there when I visited) or in O&L's possession (if he was carrying one) and handled this in fifteen minutes.

 

Didn't have a copy of the cache sheet with me. I normally go caching with a Palm loaded with all the cache descriptions, plus a headlamp, plus trade bait, plus my digital camera, etc. That night, I went out equipped light, carrying only my GPSr and a single travel bug to trade -- the cache was close to my hotel and sounded simple enough and it was the only cache I was planning on hunting.

 

Parenthetically, I'm damned glad I didn't have my camera -- THAT, they said, would have instantly escalated me to a level that they wouldn't have been authorized to handle themselves; apparently videocameras (my digital camera can take short video clips) are a serious no-no around airport perimeters. The headlamp would probably have been seen as serious terrorist gear.

 

I did hope that they'd go to the cache page, but it turned out to be surprisingly hard to get them to go to geocaching.com at all. In my fantasy (sitting in the cell, frantically thinking of what to tell them), I envisioned them letting me show them geocaching.com, then showing them the cache page.

 

That, obviously, didn't happen. But in the end, they did go to the website itself, printed it off, etc., and that seems to have been what made the difference.

 

As for looking a the copy of the cache sheet that was in the cache, you have to remember that for quite some time they regarded it as a potential bomb. It wasn't until much later, when I was brought back to the site after having spent quite some time in a cell, that I found the bomb squad on the scene and found that even then they hadn't opened it. It wasn't until they asked me if *I*'d already opened it (I just said "yes" and didn't add any wise-a** comments about that being the point of caching) that they relaxed and decided it wasn't about to go off.

 

Talk about bad communication -- I'd only described the whole expedition from start to detainment six times over, but no one had ever told the bomb squad that, yes, I'd already had the thing open. They still regarded it as a potential explosive, or so I was told.

 

-- Lemur

Link to comment
I'm glad the O&L got out OK. Four hours and handcuffs seem excessive to me and I wonder if he isn't being too good a sport about that.

 

It's the only sane thing to do. Police officers routinely deal with confusing situations, total asses, some of whom are drunk, high, or just combative. You do *not* want to fall into this slot through your own actions because if you do, they will respond with the appropriate response for behavior of that type. And you won't like it.

 

If you stay cool, they'll stay cool. If you don't give them any trouble and let the wheels of justice turn, generally (not always, but usually) things work out. And on those occasions where they don't work out, there probably wasn't anything you could have done anyway, so you might as well just stay cool and hope.

 

Which is what I did, and consequently in the end they let me go. I have to admit -- I didn't like getting cuffed one little bit, or sitting in that cell, or hearing them discuss my activities in a really, really confused way at first. I had a bad period yesterday where I couldn't stop thinking about what it felt when they put the cuffs on me for the first time, back right at the beginning when I was still sort of hoping that they'd see that I wasn't up to anything and would just let me go. (Yes, I was naive.) I hope it's a long, long, long time before I get told "Turn and face the car. Put your hands behind you. Interlace your fingers. Put your feet apart" and then feel the heavy metal of the cuffs going around my wrists.

 

Not, repeat NOT, fun.

 

-- Lemur

Edited by Otter and Lemur
Link to comment

Hmm...geocachers we have to keep an eye on...but naked Canadians scaling fences...that's ok. =)

(Wonder if he started from the same road?)

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- A Canadian man, angry that he was refused a plane ticket to Australia at Los Angeles International Airport, stripped naked, sprinted across the tarmac and climbed into the wheel well of a moving jumbo jet, officials said on Wednesday.

 

Pilots of the Qantas Airways flight stopped the plane. The man was coaxed out of the wheel well and arrested for trespassing, said airport spokeswoman Nancy Castles.

 

"This was an extremely dangerous thing for him to do. If he had continued to cling in there with the aircraft taking off at over 200 miles (320 kph) per hour, he might have fallen out and could have been sucked up by an engine," she said.

 

"If he had survived that and was in the wheel well when the landing gear was retracted, he could have been crushed by the mechanism. And if not he very likely would have frozen to death during the 15 1/2 hour flight at 30,000 feet (9,150 metres) while wearing no clothes."

 

The man, Neil Melly, 31, tried to buy a one-way ticket on the Qantas flight on Monday evening, but was turned down because he could not supply a valid credit card, Castles said.

 

Later, he managed to climb over an airport fence, topped by three strands of barbed wire, without injury and was spotted by a ramp worker "running, naked, full-speed" toward the plane.

 

Castles said a check by authorities found that Melly had been reported missing to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and was suffering from bi-polar disorder, a manic-depressive illness.

-ajb

Link to comment
If you stay cool, they'll stay cool.  If you don't give them any trouble and let the wheels of justice turn, generally (not always, but usually) things work out.  And on those occasions where they don't work out, there probably wasn't anything you could have done anyway, so you might as well just stay cool and hope.

I agree completely. In my incident in Indiana, I had people telling me how they would have gone off on the police and told them how stupid the whole situation is. My reply each time was "I wasn't in cuffs and wanted to stay that way, so it was Yes Sir and No Sir."

 

I treated them with complete respect and they treated me with respect. I suspect that if I had been belligerent with them that they would have responded differently with me. In my case, they still wanted to blow it up even when I offered to go open it for them. Their explanation was they didn't know me and didn't want to take any chances. In the end, they thanked me for my cooperation.

 

So, Otter and Lemur, has this impacted your feelings on geocaching? I have not been out since my incident happened and am not sure if I will geocache again or not. My kids are still wanting to go and have asked me several times and have been upset when I decline.

Link to comment
If you stay cool, they'll stay cool.  If you don't give them any trouble and let the wheels of justice turn, generally (not always, but usually) things work out.  And on those occasions where they don't work out, there probably wasn't anything you could have done anyway, so you might as well just stay cool and hope.

 

So, Otter and Lemur, has this impacted your feelings on geocaching? I have not been out since my incident happened and am not sure if I will geocache again or not. My kids are still wanting to go and have asked me several times and have been upset when I decline.

 

I found nine or ten caches this week, here in Vermont, in order to drop off most of the bugs I inadvertently wound up with after being made to take the "Grand Central Station" cache and all its contents with me. Didn't have a lick of trouble with any law enforcement.

 

I may feel differently if I see that a cache I was thinking about visiting is located under a rail car near a restaurant, though, or next to an airport. :laughing:

Link to comment

Wow! That's some story on the link above! I sure hope the local approvers become much more vigilent in that area, but then again maybe the cachers are just getting more evasive! In any event when an Approver says no to a cache remember this... He or she is just trying to protect us as cachers and geocaching as a game. We need to heed their advise and reconsider the hiding spot for the cache. We have had to do it several times. Stories like these make us very glad our approver is so careful and attentive to detail!

 

Lately we have seen two caches in our area placed very near railroads that apparently got by the Approver's careful eye.... and our local approver is VERY careful! Wonder what happened? In both cases there is no obstruction or natural land barrier between the tracks and the cache.

Link to comment

Lots of people think that it would be easy to direct the police to geocaching.com to resolve the problem. Think from this point of view however far fetched.

Here is a suspicious person wanting you to verify what they are doing in the area. This potential hostile is asking someone to check a certain area of the internet. Some law enforcment officers will think this a ploy. If they go to a website they have no knowlege of it might trigger other members of this "terrorist cell" to take alternate actions. I know this sounds like something from a Tom Clancy novel but it did occur to me that is why nobody would check into it right away.

Link to comment

The article in the Daily Breeze newspaper referenced above is on the top of the front page today. I drove by this cache with the intent of finding it over a year ago, but decided not to because I felt uncomfortable with the location.

 

The article quoted my log entry of another local cache that I found but questioned the location. It is next to a railroad track between an oil refinery and a chemical plant. I have been watching this one expecting a detaining or arrest.

 

The article also mentioned a cache on a local mailbox. I pulled up to this one and passed. I dislike public urban caches in general and do not think magnetic boxes stuck under mailboxes are a good idea. This is the second one like this I have passed on.

 

I think good judgement should be used when placing caches near: Airports, public buildings, schools, railroad tracks, refineries, plants, and other potentially sensitive locations.

Link to comment
Lately we have seen two caches in our area placed very near railroads that apparently got by the Approver's careful eye.... and our local approver is VERY careful! Wonder what happened? In both cases there is no obstruction or natural land barrier between the tracks and the cache.

The caches you're referring to were all questioned by me carefully before being listed. The owners swore up and down that the caches are in parks or other safe places that are not too close to the tracks. If you believe that any cache is within a RR right of way or otherwise poses a safety hazard, I'd encourage you to post a "Should be Archived" log or write to me privately.

 

I've also tried the "automatically archive any cache too close to the tracks" route, and it is far more painful. I wish I could share some of the hate mail publicly. People are often quite adamant that their cache next to the railroad tracks, police station, etc. MUST be listed. Often I will ask for pictures of the area before listing the cache.

Link to comment

i got hassled by the cops before i even entered a waypoint into my unit!...waiting for my partner outside of 7/11 when i was approached by 2 cops wanting to know what i was doing, where i lived, how long, who my partner was, etc...things are getting ridiculous out there!

Link to comment
In hindsight, the cache never should have been approved, even if at the time it was placed the street was open to vehicular traffic.

This assertion needs to be squared up against the geocache listing standards as they existed in early 2002, when this cache was listed. Hindsight, of course, is always 20-20. As I stated earlier, the cache would not be listed if submitted today. Back then, there were fewer rules. But as people continued hiding caches by airports and dams, or 2000 miles from home while on vacation, or 50 feet from another cache, these rules were added. Now we have a long, comprehensive set of listing standards which not everyone takes the time to read.

You don't approve caches near airports?

 

This cache was approved in October of this year. Let's see who can guess where it is. The airstrip is a public small aircraft airport. If you are from the area, let's let the other folks try to find it.

 

6cd4d6c2-77a6-451e-a5ac-d48a11689074.jpg

 

Parsa

Link to comment
In hindsight, the cache never should have been approved, even if at the time it was placed the street was open to vehicular traffic.

This assertion needs to be squared up against the geocache listing standards as they existed in early 2002, when this cache was listed. Hindsight, of course, is always 20-20. As I stated earlier, the cache would not be listed if submitted today. Back then, there were fewer rules. But as people continued hiding caches by airports and dams, or 2000 miles from home while on vacation, or 50 feet from another cache, these rules were added. Now we have a long, comprehensive set of listing standards which not everyone takes the time to read.

You don't approve caches near airports?

 

This cache was approved in October of this year. Let's see who can guess where it is. The airstrip is a public small aircraft airport. If you are from the area, let's let the other folks try to find it.

Parsa

I got it! What do I win? :anibad:

So is the airport really there? The strip shows on the topo maps, but many topos are decades out of date. Looking at the links for MapPoint, MapQuest, Yahoo, and Rand McNally, there is no airport listed there. All the other maps show that as a state park.

 

ce174c8b-fdc9-4047-985e-c4d1c264c28f.jpg

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

Yes, the landing strip is still there.

 

However, there are no fences, no gates, no facilities or buldings, no hangars, no restricted areas, no signs, no security issues. Nada. In fact, other than the landing strip itself, there is nothing there.

 

Not quite a valid comparison to LAX.

 

Cache placement guidelines currently reflect the concern for heightened security

as noted here:

 

Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

"...Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports."

 

Since a paved landing strip (not an airport) way out in the desert hardly seems like a potential or possible target for any sort of attack, I don't see the problem with this placement.

Link to comment

Otter and Lemur, my 2cents worth as a federal law enforcement officer (ICE/DHS):

 

It appears to me you got suckered into voluntarily accompanying the officers to the station. You see, the officers successfully avoided having to arrest you to avoid any inkling of being sued for unlawful arrest in the event you were lawfully present where you were and doing nothing illegal.

 

There would be no harm done if you ask, politely of course, what the repercussions would be if you declined to accompany them to the station. You can also agree going to the station on your terms, driving there yourself, meeting them there with your attorney, etc...

 

I realized you thought agreeing to their terms seemed like the easiest thing to do, and the quickest way to end this. But sometimes, even the good guys get shafted; so you gotta be a little assertive with cops. You don't have to be an a-hole, but do assert your rights a bit more.

 

The handcuffing thing can be justified by officers under the heading of officer safety. Since the officers had no idea what you were up to and they were transporting you in their vehicle, they could justify handcuffing you. However, I have the feeling they got your permission to handcuff you as well, or at the very least explaned to you why they were handcuffing you.

 

My hint to all: when caught by a muggle wondering what you are doing, tell them you are in a scavenger hunt. This activity is more understood than geocaching. I'm not saying it would have cleared everything in this case, but it no doubt would have cleared some initial questions.

 

Good to have you back safe and sound.

 

BTW which one got busted, the Otter or Lemur? :anibad:

Link to comment
The handcuffing thing can be justified by officers under the heading of officer safety.  Since the officers had no idea what you were up to and they were transporting you in their vehicle, they could justify handcuffing you.  However, I have the feeling they got your permission to handcuff you as well, or at the very least explaned to you why they were handcuffing you.

 

...

 

BTW which one got busted, the Otter or Lemur?  :anibad:

They didn't ask me if it was okay to handcuff me. They instructed me in plain terms to face the car, spread my legs, interlace my fingers, etc. At the beginning of this sequence I was thinking "They're going to frisk me. Annoying, but what's a guy to do?" Then the handcuffs went on my wrists. I was somewhat startled at that point, believe you me.

 

I was not given any opportunity to express consent until that part when I was actually trudging off to my car, cache container in hand, and they called to me and said the FBI had arrived and wanted to speak with me. Perhaps stupidly, perhaps not, I said something along the lines of "I don't really have a choice, do I?" and saw a sea of absolutely firm, expressionless faces looking at me. I got in the car.

 

As for which of us was busted, it was me, Lemur. Otter was safely at home in Vermont; she works as an accountant and never has to travel. I was the one thinking "Since I'm in LA, I'll make a quick run over to that nearby travel bug hotel." Famous last words.

 

-- Lemur

Link to comment
The handcuffing thing can be justified by officers under the heading of officer safety.  Since the officers had no idea what you were up to and they were transporting you in their vehicle, they could justify handcuffing you.  However, I have the feeling they got your permission to handcuff you as well, or at the very least explaned to you why they were handcuffing you.

 

...

 

BTW which one got busted, the Otter or Lemur?  :lol:

They didn't ask me if it was okay to handcuff me. They instructed me in plain terms to face the car, spread my legs, interlace my fingers, etc. At the beginning of this sequence I was thinking "They're going to frisk me. Annoying, but what's a guy to do?" Then the handcuffs went on my wrists. I was somewhat startled at that point, believe you me.

 

I was not given any opportunity to express consent until that part when I was actually trudging off to my car, cache container in hand, and they called to me and said the FBI had arrived and wanted to speak with me. Perhaps stupidly, perhaps not, I said something along the lines of "I don't really have a choice, do I?" and saw a sea of absolutely firm, expressionless faces looking at me. I got in the car.

 

As for which of us was busted, it was me, Lemur. Otter was safely at home in Vermont; she works as an accountant and never has to travel. I was the one thinking "Since I'm in LA, I'll make a quick run over to that nearby travel bug hotel." Famous last words.

 

-- Lemur

Sounds to me you were arrested; that's the consensus in my office. Generally, once you get handcuffed and transported anywhere without your consent, you are considered under arrest. And if they are going to question you subsequent to an arrest, they must mirandize you (read you your rights). Now, since they didn't press any charges, you may not have a case about being read your rights, but the arrest part appears very questionable. You may want to seek legal counsel on this.

OK, enough legal speak, lets get caching!

 

Anybody figure out Parsa's airport question? I know the FTF'er.

Link to comment

Hey all,

 

I'm brand new to caching (like four or five days since I found the Geocaching website) I haven't read all of the posts of this thread and others that have dealt with this situation. But as a current "county mountie", I decided to throw my two cents in. And let me say from the start, I don't claim to be an expert on what happened and am not saying that anything that anyone else has posted is wrong or incorrect. This is just my opinion on what i have read and my knowledge of the law. So, if you don't agree with what I'm about to say, that's OK. It's just a difference of opinion.

 

Based on what I have read, I think that the officers detained Lemur and, as Lemur has said, they had a right to do so. Technically, Lemur had violated the law. He was trespassing in an area where he shouldn't have been. As to how well it was posted, that might have been an issue for the lawyers to argue if the situation had ended up in court. I know from my 20+ yrs in law enforcement, I have come across people who (by the letter of the law) were trespassing. But after speaking with them and using my cognative reasoning device (aka, my brain) I realized that these people were not criminals (by the spirit of the law).

 

Lemur had pointed out that the officers did what was necessary and reasonable in this incident to determine what he was up to. It's unfortunate that he had to spend several hours with them in order to clear it up but sometimes the wheels (and brains) of justice move slow. The locals did what they needed to do to make sure Lemur was who he said he was and he was doing what he said he was doing. The the Feds came in and they wanted to make sure everything was on the up and up by their standards. Put yourself in their positions. Would you like to be the officer or agent who let a terrorist go after sort up checking on his story, only to have him hijack a plane or some other act that killed innocents? And then the media finds out?

 

My hat is off to Lemur for how he handled the situation. He acted responsibly and with tact, even when he got some badge heavy jerk who wanted to try his "bad cop" routine out. Just because some officer is a jerk (yes, there are some of them out there), doesn't mean you should return in kind. And you will gain a lot of respect from the other officers there who know the one guy is a jerk and probably don't like him anyway.

 

Anyway, I've rambled on enough. Lemur, If you still have the Travel bug that needs to make it to Disneyland, I'm taking my daughter there within the next month. E-mail me if you want me to escort him there.

 

Dogboy40

Edited by Dogboy40
Link to comment
Anyway, I've rambled on enough.  Lemur, If you still have the Travel bug that needs to make it to Disneyland, I'm taking my daughter there within the next month.  E-mail me if you want me to escort him there.

The legendary Happy & Skippy have the Mickey TB -- you can contact them if you want it. (I mailed it, and two others, to them.) Thank you for your kind words.

 

-- Lemur

Link to comment

...Based on what I have read, I think that the officers detained Lemur and, as Lemur has said, they had a right to do so.  Technically, Lemur had violated the law.  He was trespassing in an area where he shouldn't have been.  As to how well it was posted, that might have been an issue for the lawyers to argue if the situation had ended up in court.  I know from my 20+ yrs in law enforcement, I have come across people who (by the letter of the law) were trespassing.  But after speaking with them and using my cognative reasoning device (aka, my brain) I realized that these people were not criminals (by the spirit of the law)...

Dogboy40

More two cents; who's counting, I think that makes 6 cents.

 

Based on what both Lemur and Javaa have stated, it appears Lemur was not trespassing. Seems to me the officers used the guise/cry of terrorism to take him in without probable cause, a required element of arrest, which is one of the issues here. Was he arrested or not. I say yes.

 

The officers had all the necessary tools in the field to ascertain his story.

 

Was he trespassing? it appears not, based on statements made here;

Did he destroy property? it appears not, " " ;

Was he violating in curfew? we don't know, but it appears not;

Was he acting suspicious? probably, we don't know what exactly the officers saw and for how long;

Did he have a suspicious device in his hand? yes, but cops always come across unrecognized electronic devices.

 

It appears Lemur was detained based on his bearded appearance. What if Grandma Moses was the one caught caching? After searching Lemur, the only thing they probably found suspicious was the GPS receiver, which alone is no reason to take someone in. Lemur had shown them the container which should have ruled out an explosive device and presumably contained the geocaching letter. Lemur had his ID enabling the officers to run a wants and warrants query.

 

The officers had every reason to detain him (and handcuff him pending the field investigation) and investigate their initial suspicions. But to arrest him without any apparent evidence of wrongdoing deserves a legal review.

 

Where's our legally trained cachers? Carleenp? Flagman?

 

Dogboy40, it appears we live no more than 15 miles apart! :lol: If you would like a caching partner, feel free to send me an email. And welcome to scavenger hunts, ah, I mean geocaching. :lol: And if you see a red Nissan p'up speeding on Espola Rd, can you excercise some favaorable discretion in my favor. :lol:

Edited by Chuy
Link to comment

Here are some more facts to consider:

 

1. The cache location was within the airport boundary, but the cache is located 1.7 miles from the nearest terminal;

2. It did sit about 700 feet north of a runway, but it's separated by a barbed wire fence and is not under a flight path. Flights come in from the east and take off to the west;

3. The cache was in a restricted area, but to vehicles, not pedestrian traffic. The area was not restricted to vehicles when it was placed;

4. The cache had 462 visits before being archived! I went through the first 40 logs before finding a negative entry, which did not have to do with terrorist concerns.

5. I didn't make time to read every log, but I read all the logs with 700+ finds and none mentioned the hide was bad. I also did a search of all "bad" word entries and did not find one referring to a bad hide.

 

Bottom line, the cache needs to be moved due to the police request and the negative publicity it has generated, but it does not appear the hide was a bad one.

Link to comment
Bottom line, the cache needs to be moved due to the police request and the negative publicity it has generated, but it does not appear the hide was a bad one.

That pretty much summarizes it all.

 

I've driven by the area and from what I can see the area has not changed. The signs on the fence tell people no tresspassing and no loitering. Was Lemur trespassing? No, he didn't. He didn't climb any fence to get into the area. He walked into the area using the sidewalk. No signs are at the barracade telling you you can't walk into the area. However in the eyes of the police, Lemur could be seen as loitering.

 

I had a cache about a mile away (GCH9R1). The SAME signs populate the fences there. The area was a popular place for plane spotters, joggers, and folks wanting to cut to the beach. Sandpiper Road was barracaded, but folks could still use the road. Two years passed and finally they put up signs forbidding foot traffic. I removed the cache and turned it into a virtual because of the sign. In fact I used the sign as the vitual so people didn't have to stop their car - just read as they pass by.

Link to comment

Keystone approver closed the thread of my own post, so I'll restate what was in bold at the end of my post:

 

I don't want my rights rescinded because some zealot has decided it's against my own interest. If this cache is forced out of commission, what's to stop the authorities from putting a stop to caching entirely under the pretense that it is too dangerous for our own good? They removed this cache because it was too close to the airport, and because people were taking items of unknown origin on the plane with them. Why, then, would we assume that they won't remove all caches because travel bugs could be picked up from any cache?

 

The rest of the post, though political, is very relevant, and I'm somewhat put off by the closing of my thread. For those interested in reading it, it's called "Geocaching in a fear based world" in the forum topics.

 

I'm looking for input from everyone on their thoughts here, and I wanted to state in a coherent and rational way my views. I'm not looking to start a political fight.

Link to comment

Hello again.

 

Please review the Forum Guidelines and in particular the following:

 

The goal of the Groundspeak Forum is to promote the activity of Geocaching and GPS Usage. It is an open forum sponsored by Groundspeak Inc. for discussing all aspects of Geocaching, Benchmark hunting, GPS Usage and Groundspeak related GPS Gaming.

 

Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Political statements are off-topic. If you wish to discuss political views, please do so in the off-topic forum.

 

Further replies to this topic should be limited to discussing the cache placement, the incident which occurred, the listing standards for caches near airports, and other matters related to geocaching. This topic is not to be a continuation of the closed thread.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
If this cache is forced out of commission, what's to stop the authorities from putting a stop to caching entirely under the pretense that it is too dangerous for our own good?

Because there isn't a jurisdiction or a mechanism for such a thing.

 

The authorities have a mandate to secure the area around airports. I'll bet plane spotters are coming under increasing scrutiny these days, too. I don't blame anyone for this. There was a scare around Heathrow last year after intelligence reports that someone might try to set off a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile at a US-bound plane. As I might well have been on such a plane, the care and attention the police used to stop people behaving suspiciously anywhere near that runway was much appreciated by me.

 

If you really think this sort of thing would've stopped had the election come out differently...well. That's interesting.

 

Don't act hinky around airports. Pretty simple.

Link to comment
...Bottom line, the cache needs to be moved due to the police request and the negative publicity it has generated, but it does not appear the hide was a bad one.

I agree with the removal for one reason only. Airports have a standing policy of no unattended items on their premisis. That's it. If the Airport spoke and used the long arm of the law to send the message. Fine.

 

If the long arm of the law is going to start dictating what caches stay, or go, and that starts to cross the line of reason, it's time to start coming up with a strategy before 'no' is the universal operating word due to terrorist concerns on all caches.

Link to comment
I don't want my rights rescinded because some zealot has decided it's against my own interest. [...] They removed this cache because it was too close to the airport[...]

 

 

I kind of understand your frustration here B) .

 

However, as most of us agree, it is not a good idea to place caches too close from airports. Not only airports are sensitive areas, even when the country is not at war, but on top of that, airport are extremely noisy and when geocaching, I personally look forward to having a good time, not to have my ears exploded by jets taking-off.

 

Following the guidelines, I will not discuss the political aspect of your thread but it is very true that this country has unfortunately changed to a general state of fear that is not good for geocaching among other things. This sate of fear is very damaging, but I do not participate in this "game" and it is up to us to fight it by just refusing to get trapped in it and not getting paranoid :). For example, I never hide when geocaching, I think hiding is looking suspicious :D , except when it is needed to protect the cache, and the game is perfectly legit.

Link to comment

Let's look at the issue from a strictly legal viewpoint.

Does the area where the cache was belong to the airport? My understanding is that it does not. It is public property along a public street.

In this case, was there a legal basis to have the cache removed from this public area? Does the fact that "police officer X.Y. said that he wants it to be removed" qualify as a valid legal basis?

Link to comment
Let's look at the issue from a strictly legal viewpoint.

Does the area where the cache was belong to the airport? My understanding is that it does not. It is public property along a public street.

In this case, was there a legal basis to have the cache removed from this public area? Does the fact that "police officer X.Y. said that he wants it to be removed" qualify as a valid legal basis?

Actually, if you look at the maps for the cache, even though the cache was on the outside of the fence, it still seems to be airport property.

 

Pssst...... J-man. I feel bad about the cache, and your bad luck, but the political rants on the cache page probably violate the terms of use and the guidelines about using a cache to promote an agenda. Besides, the only politician responsible for your cache getting archived is hiding in a cave in the middle east. I doubt he cares about your cache.

Link to comment

 

Pssst...... J-man. I feel bad about the cache, and your bad luck, but the political rants on the cache page probably violate the terms of use and the guidelines about using a cache to promote an agenda. Besides, the only politician responsible for your cache getting archived is hiding in a cave in the middle east. I doubt he cares about your cache.

Really Mopar, you are being waaaay to subtle this time. And I agree with you completely.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...