Jump to content

Geocaching, Dc, & The Fbi


traeumer

Recommended Posts

My point was:  Where Does It Stop?

I'm sorry that I missed your point. I do agree with you. One puts himself on a very slippy slope when he decides it is OK to give up a little of his rights.

Are you talking about the right to go snooping in bushes, under park benches, in knot holes in trees, behind buildings, in trash cans, etc.........?

 

Is that the 'right' that you mean?

Link to comment

Often questions are asked to see if your story remains true throughout the discussion (adds to their suspicion when you say "I'm a tourist from Nevada, first time in town, been here for a week, leaving tomorrow, been geocaching, went to the Archives once three weeks ago, nice place"). So, while it might be meaningless to the reason they approached you, it helps gauge if you're lying at all.

 

A summary of 4 pages: I think it's clear that *anyone* can come up and ask you questions. It's up to you whether you want to have a discussion or not. If they are investigating your activities though, then leaving the discussion may force them to worry more about you and ramp up the discussion to an actual detention. If that goes badly, then they may need to make it an official arrest. The best approach may be to comply as much as you are comfortable. For some that may be to lay down on the sidewalk immediately in a prone position. For others that may be to insult the officer's mother and mock their hairstyle. If you work *with* the officer, you may even find that they are more bothered by needing to stop you per their orders than you are by being stopped. Finally, New Hampshire license plates die when you lock them away in a drawer not Maryland's.

Link to comment
This is already happening. It is very hard to obtain a visa for citizens of the countries you mentioned (FBI background checks often taking several months are made) and even after they enter the US, they have to report on where they are and what they are doing periodically (every 30 days for some countries, every year for others; this is called "special registration"). And of course all foreign tourists are photographed and their fingerprints are taken. I don't think this system should be tightened even more.

If that is the case then good. At this point it would seem like things are working. I do think we are safer because of these types of actions rather than questioning people in the street that have not been doing anything wrong.

 

As far as reporting every year I don't know how new that is. My mother has her green card as a resident alien and has had to send in a form every year for as far back as I can recall.

 

Remember all those years we spent answering those stupid questions while checking in at the airport. Finally somebody with an IQ higher than the temperature of an ice cube figured out that all those questions never prevented anything. But you had to answer them. You could not fly if you did not want to answer them. The point is don't just blindly follow what you are force fed. Sometimes things need to be questioned. And just because a person has a badge, a gun, ID or is in some position of power does not mean they know it all or are always acting they way they should.

Link to comment
As far as reporting every year I don't know how new that is. My mother has her green card as a resident alien and has had to send in a form every year for as far back as I can recall.

As far as I know, special registration means that the individual has to show up in person for an interview with the authorities.

Link to comment
As far as I know, special registration means that the individual has to show up in person for an interview with the authorities.

Ah that is the difference.

 

And to bring this all back on topic. I think the bottom line is that people will handle being stopped and questioned how they feel most comfortable. This would be true no matter what you are doing, being geocaching or watching the trees trying to predict which leaf will be the next to fall.

 

I guess the one thing is to not lie about what you are doing. If you don't want to answer that is an answer. But don't tell them you are doing something you are not. Doing that does open you up to suspicion.

Link to comment
I'm surprised it took 5 pages before moderator intervention.

Yea I was going to say something way back on page two but I did not want to jinx anything.

 

I do want to say thank you for letting this go on.

 

Or were all of you mods and TPTB meeting in your secret underground cave planning the New World Geo Order for take over and could not get to a computer to see what us surface dwellers were up to.

 

Me I was just trying to build up my post to day ratio so I could be part of the big chill next week.

Link to comment
...I think it's clear that *anyone* can come up and ask you questions. It's up to you whether you want to have a discussion or not. If they are investigating your activities though, then leaving the discussion may force them to worry more about you and ramp up the discussion to an actual detention. If that goes badly, then they may need to make it an official arrest....

If I understand you correctly, even though one is not being detained, if they decide to leave, they should be detained. If they continue to not want to be detained, they should be arrested?

 

You've created an impossible scenario. On one hand, if you are not being detained, you should be free to go. You're decision to leave cannot be used as grounds to detain you (let alone arrest you), per the Supremes.

 

I regularly cache with a PDA and GPSr in the area of our state capital. I also have cached in the DC area and will again. If this happens to me while caching, I will show my ID and answer a limited number of questions, but thats it. I will certainly assert my rights.

Link to comment

I took a walk at lunchtime and found a micro that had eluded me on my first try. Since my office is right next to the state capital building, I was on the grounds for practically the whole walk over. During the walk, I was thinking about this thread and how peaved I would be if I was stopped and questioned for twenty minutes just because I was wandering about public places.

 

For some reason I thought of this pic. Here I am in all my glory with a Tennessee State Trooper who was guarding the capital building against the possibility that some anti-tax folks would get out of hand. You will note the GPSr in my hand and the pda on my belt. I initially was going to take the pic of just him and my 3+, but he was a little camera shy and insisted that I be in the pic while his fellow trooper took the pic.

 

339685_300.JPG

Link to comment

Are you talking about the right to go snooping in bushes, under park benches, in knot holes in trees, behind buildings, in trash cans, etc.........?

 

Is that the 'right' that you mean?

Sure. Assuming all of these things are accessible without trespassing, everyone has the right to be there.

 

I can certainly understand there being high security around government buildings and I wouldn't be too bothered if I was approached and asked a few questions if I looked out of the ordinary (and if I was caching I would appear out of the ordinary).

 

I would be bothered by the described 20 minute interogaction. There are limits to what is reasonable. We may all draw the line in a slightly different place though.

 

For me once I have been asked what I am doing and I explain it honestly it is time for the questions to stop and for me to resume going about my business. If I am in a public area and they wish to keep an eye on me fine, but I would want my freedom of movement back.

Link to comment
And where did the "100% Native American" (Indians in the non-PC world) come from? They are immigrants as well.

:P

 

Actually, they are the only ones who are NOT immigrants!

Depends on your definition. If one traces it back far enough, even Native Americans are immigrants. Their ansestors came over the land bridge from Asia, according to the prevailant theory. :P

 

Back on topic, I've only been stopped once by a LEO while caching. It was in Albuquerque, my rental car was parked next to a road that ran along the fence of the airport, and it was nighttime. I can see why they stopped. A few minutes later and I was on my way. No harm, no foul. BTW, I DNF'd that cache, had to come back later in the trip during the day to find it.

 

Shannon

VegasCacheHounds

Link to comment
If this happens to me while caching, I will show my ID and answer a limited number of questions, but thats it. I will certainly assert my rights.

 

Good luck with that. Let us know how it goes. :P I don't know how many people over the years that I've arrested for inappropriatly asserting what they mistakenly thought at the time were their rights, when in actuality they were being disorderly, obstructive or resisting. The fact that the judges find them guilty would indicate that my interpretation of the application of the law over their assertion of their rights was correct. That being said, I try to NEVER forget that this is a fellow citizen that I'm dealing with that has the exact same rights that everyone else does, including me. I take seriously the power I have been given to deny someone their freedom. I don't particularly like the word power here, since it connotes abuse. It's more along the lines of a responsibility.

 

The example that I have used regarding inappropriate assertion of rights in classes I've taught is this: An officer responds on a report of a subject seen inside a closed business. The officer arrives and finds a man inside. The officer begins to question the man regarding his presence there and the man indignantly replies that he knows his right to remain silent and refuses to answer. The officer arrests the man for burglary. At his arraignment in court the next day, the man announces to the judge that he is the building janitor and was there working. He explains that he didn't care for the officer's "attitude", so he didn't give an explanation to him.

 

Acknowledging that this is an extreme example, was the officer justified in contacting, detaining and arresting the man? Absolutely. Did the man have the constitutional right to remain silent? Sure. Was this a wise time and place to assert that right? No. He exchanged the right to remain silent for his right to freedom, which I can't ever see as a good trade.

 

So that it's not missed, my point is this: Having a right and exersizing it are two different things. Unless you have an extensive background and training in the application of criminal law and regularly keep up on current court rulings on search and seizure in your particular jurisdiction, as police officers are required to do, aggressively asserting your rights MAY not be in your best interest. It ALL depends on the particular circumstances at the time.

 

Coincidently, I am teaching a class in a few hours to new officers on FIR's (stands for field interrogation reports), which covers the whole range of what's been discussed in these five pages. One of the things I'll be telling them is to always keep in mind that people have rights that shouldn't be trampled on and to minimize their level of intrusiveness.

 

Keeping this on topic, I've yet to be contacted by a cop while geocaching. Maybe I'm just more aware of how not to look suspicious, though I doubt it. When it happens, I'll give an honest explanation, answer the questions and wish him a safe day.

 

Why do cops behave the way they do? Last year, 153 cops were killed in the line of duty, which was about an average year. So far this year there have been nine, one last night. All gave some, some gave all.

Link to comment

I've only been approached once. I was standing in a median adjacent to LAX looking for a virt. A police car pulled over and the cop yelled at me to put away my camera and get off the median. I yelled back (it was a loud area) that it was a GPS, not a camera and I got off the median. Luckily, the spot that I landed on (no pun intended) on the side of the street was the spot I was looking for.

 

It was one of my favorite virts; a really cool spot. The place where the virt was located was just under the flight line. Jumbo jets were popping out of the low clouds just over my head just seconds before slamming down on the runways. You gotta love those GPS approaches.

Link to comment
...I don't know how many people over the years that I've arrested for inappropriatly asserting what they mistakenly thought at the time were their rights, when in actuality they were being disorderly, obstructive or resisting.

...

The example that I have used regarding inappropriate assertion of rights in classes I've taught is this:...

First, what were the individuals convicted of? In the OP's case he had done nothing wrong. If he had answered the first few questions and then asked if he was free to go, what would you have done? Would you then have probable cause to further detain him? Would you have arrested him? This seams like a different issue than the one posed in your example.

Link to comment
...

Why do cops behave the way they do? Last year, 153 cops were killed in the line of duty, which was about an average year. So far this year there have been nine, one last night. All gave some, some gave all.

I appreciate what they have given, but it does not appear to be on point. It is a good reason to give a brief pat down that is allowed under many situations. An extended question-and-answer session (which is what the topic was about) does neither put an officer at risk nor protect him from harm.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Are you talking about the right to go snooping in bushes, under park benches, in knot holes in trees, behind buildings, in trash cans, etc.........?

 

Is that the 'right' that you mean?

Sure. Assuming all of these things are accessible without trespassing, everyone has the right to be there.

 

I can certainly understand there being high security around government buildings and I wouldn't be too bothered if I was approached and asked a few questions if I looked out of the ordinary (and if I was caching I would appear out of the ordinary).

 

I would be bothered by the described 20 minute interogaction. There are limits to what is reasonable. We may all draw the line in a slightly different place though.

 

For me once I have been asked what I am doing and I explain it honestly it is time for the questions to stop and for me to resume going about my business. If I am in a public area and they wish to keep an eye on me fine, but I would want my freedom of movement back.

There is a subtile yet important difference between 'being there' and 'snooping'. Why 'being there' was injected into the discussion puzzles me. Have I missed a point where it has been suggested that we have no right to 'be there'?

 

I think that most people understand that.

 

While we certainly do not consider our activities to be 'snooping' I can dang well guarantee you that the muggles, who out number us by a very wide margin, do view what we do as 'snooping'. And given the times and locations, they rightly consider those activities as suspicious in nature.

 

Some things you just cannot change. This is one of those things.

 

Kinda reminds me of a show I was watching once. It had to do with people's overall health and the negatives associated with being fat. The ghist of the conversation was: 'You may think that being fat is not your fault or not partuculairly health dangerous. That might in some cases, even be true. You will not however in ten lifetimes, ever convince those of slender build that it makes you attractive.'

 

Muggles and cops are by definition of 'slender build'.

Edited by Team cotati697
Link to comment
An officer responds on a report of a subject seen inside a closed business.

I agree that this situation may be sufficient for an arrest. However, do you think that the simple fact that someone is walking on the street with a GPSr or a PDA is sufficient for a reasonable suspicion that he is up to no good? Is a 20-minute, tiresome interrogation justified?

Link to comment
An extended question-and-answer session (which is what the topic was about) does neither put an officer at risk nor protect him from harm.

 

No, that's exactly the point. EVERY contact puts an officer at risk. I'm not intending to put you down when I say that no one but a cop can truly understand that.

 

Two nights ago I contacted an occupied vehicle parked with its light out across the street from a bingo hall. Turned out to be a very pleasant 80 year old guy that was waiting for his girlfriend because the other parking lot was too full. We had a very nice conversation that I thoroughly enjoyed. As I turned to go he said to me "I didn't know who that was coming up behind me shining a light in my window". As he patted his jacket he added "I almost reached for my Berretta." EVERY contact puts an officer at risk. I think about this every minute of every 10 hour shift.

 

Questions are asked to elicit a response that it guaged for truthfulness and reasonableness. Truthful, reasonable explanations are an indication that a person's actions legitimate. Responses that are otherwise means more questions. How long should it take? As long as it takes to get to a truthful, reasonable explanation.

Link to comment
Depends on your definition. If one traces it back far enough, even Native Americans are immigrants. Their ansestors came over the land bridge from Asia, according to the prevailant theory. :P

I was waiting for someone to say that :lol:

 

However, Native Americans are not immigrants into the United States. Rather, the political entity "the United States of America" could be said to have "immigrated" onto the Native Americans.

 

Probably the word you were looking for is the more anthropological "migrant/migration" rather than the political (in the broadest sense) term "immigrant/immigration".

 

(I don't want to get into a sterile debate about the rights and wrongs of the various colonisations of the North American continent - nothing the white man did back then is any of our faults today, and I'm not an American of any sort - but just from a semantic point of view, there can be no immigration to a political entity which doesn't exist. For the same reason, I won't make an analogy with Denzel Washington's line "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock - Plymouth Rock landed on us" in "Malcolm X", great soundbite that it undoubtedly was.)

 

PS: Sorry moderator, drifted off topic. Anyway, Shannon started it. :P

Link to comment
QUOTE (Team Noltex @ Jan 27 2005, 05:01 PM)

An officer responds on a report of a subject seen inside a closed business. 

 

I agree that this situation may be sufficient for an arrest. However, do you think that the simple fact that someone is walking on the street with a GPSr or a PDA is sufficient for a reasonable suspicion that he is up to no good? Is a 20-minute, tiresome interrogation justified?

 

Speculation on the contact that started this thread could be, and has been, endless. As someone else pointed out, the ONLY way to know if this was a reasonable intrusion would have been to be there or have documentation of both sides. Anything else is just academic conjecture.

Link to comment
Questions are asked to elicit a response that it guaged for truthfulness and reasonableness. Truthful, reasonable explanations are an indication that a person's actions legitimate. Responses that are otherwise means more questions. How long should it take? As long as it takes to get to a truthful, reasonable explanation.

I can accept that -- and I appreciate all you and the other LEOs do out there. Stay safe.

 

Speculation on the contact that started this thread could be, and has been, endless.

 

Whoo, you betcha. Arguing with some of these people is like the old folk tale of trying to teach a pig to sing.

Link to comment
As he patted his jacket he added "I almost reached for my Berretta."

Uh, does this mean that in addition to your average thugs and crooks, a regular geocacher should be afraid of FBI agents, other LEOs and normal people? :P

Edited by Divine
Link to comment
Speculation on the contact that started this thread could be, and has been, endless. As someone else pointed out, the ONLY way to know if this was a reasonable intrusion would have been to be there or have documentation of both sides. Anything else is just academic conjecture.

OK, but we don't have to speculate, let's create an artificial scenario. A guy with an electronic device (which could be a PDA or a GPSr) is walking up and down on the street near a federal building, often glancing on the device and he seems to be confused. That's all you see and you are a LEO. Do you decide to stop the guy, make him tell the story of his life, get his ID, call the info in, and generally hassle him for 20 minutes because you have reasonable suspicion that he is a terrorist and what he's doing is that he's collecting the coordinates of the building so that a few weeks later he can fly a plane into it?

Link to comment
would be bothered by the described 20 minute interogaction.

 

Let's say I'm at work and you are out geocaching in your car. I see you in an area near a business that is closed and you get out of the car walk behind the building with a 'device' then come back a couple of minutes later and get back in your car. As you leave, I pull you over. I walk to your car and ask for your license and ask what you were doing in the parking lot of the closed business. You tell me that you were geocaching and explain it to me. I kinda think you are weird, but accept the explanation. I then return to my car and try to run your license info on my MDT but after 5-10 minutes the MDT doesn't respond. I then radio the dispatcher to get her to run the info... 5-10 minutes later she tells me that the state computers are down (happens all the time) by now I've had you stopped for 30 minutes and have asked you some questions. I conclude, without being able to ascertain that you have no warrants, that you most likely are not wanted. I jot down your info so I can run you at a later time and return your license to you and tell you to have a nice day... no harm, no foul.

 

Would you consider your rights to have been violated? After all you were just geocaching and not harming anyone. You may be upset that it took 20-30 minutes but I would be justified in doing what I did. I was protecting private property and because I saw that building everyday I knew people weren't supposed to be there after hours. I would have been well within my rights to do a quick investigation. I know it would probably be a hassle, but I would just be doing what I was sworn to do.

 

The flip-side would be if I didn't do a quick investigation and you were a burglar and someone saw me there looking at you but not investigating the odd behavior. I could then be liable.

 

There's always two sides to every story. I encourage geocachers just to be honest and not evasive with LEOs. There's no need to allow your rights to be violated and if you feel your rights have been violated by all means seek legal assistance, but to be evasive to an officer just doing their job doesn't help you or the officer.

 

This has been an interesting thread and one that does involve geocachers since the odds are high that sometime during your caching career you may encounter an inquisitive LEO who will have probable cause to stop you and ask you a couple of simple questions.

Link to comment
As he patted his jacket he added "I almost reached for my Berretta."

Uh, does this mean that in addition to your average thugs and crooks, a regular geocacher should be afraid of FBI agents, other LEOs and normal people? :P

I think that you meant: "Aware of, respectful of and sensitive to."

 

That IS what you meant isn't it?

Link to comment
Divine Posted on Jan 27 2005, 02:48 PM

  (Team Noltex @ Jan 28 2005, 12:31 AM)

As he patted his jacket he added "I almost reached for my Berretta." 

 

Uh, does this mean that in addition to your average thugs and crooks, a regular geocacher should be afraid of FBI agents, other LEOs and normal people?

 

The official motto is "Prepared, not paranoid" :P

 

as77 Posted on Jan 27 2005, 02:49 PM

  QUOTE (Team Noltex @ Jan 27 2005, 05:37 PM)

Speculation on the contact that started this thread could be, and has been, endless. As someone else pointed out, the ONLY way to know if this was a reasonable intrusion would have been to be there or have documentation of both sides. Anything else is just academic conjecture. 

 

OK, but we don't have to speculate, let's create an artificial scenario. A guy with an electronic device (which could be a PDA or a GPSr) is walking up and down on the street near a federal building, often glancing on the device and he seems to be confused. That's all you see and you are a LEO. Do you decide to stop the guy, make him tell the story of his life, get his ID, call the info in, and generally hassle him for 20 minutes because you have reasonable suspicion that he is a terrorist and what he's doing is that he's collecting the coordinates of the building so that a few weeks later he can fly a plane into it?

 

It would be beneficial to the argument if your choice of description wasn't so obviously biased to the outcome. If I'm talking to him and he tells me he's a terrorist and what he's doing is that he's collecting the coordinates of the building so that a few weeks later he can fly a plane into it, we'll probably have enough to talk about that we'll go over the apparent 20 minute time limit.

 

How it should go is: Ask reasonable questions, get reasonable answers, go your seperate ways. Unfortunately, with humans involved, it doesn't always happen that way.

Link to comment

Anyway, after reading this thread, I decided not to go geocaching to DC... especially as I'm not even a US citizen, so in the same situation I would probably be arrested, interrogated for hours in a basement or something. I don't need that.

Link to comment
Do you decide to stop the guy, make him tell the story of his life, get his ID, call the info in, and generally hassle him for 20 minutes because you have reasonable suspicion that he is a terrorist and what he's doing is that he's collecting the coordinates of the building so that a few weeks later he can fly a plane into it?

 

First of all, ateerorist does not have hang around to get the coordinates, those can be gotten while walking by without even having to stop. More than likely a terrorist is just going grab coordinates with out hanging around to get noticed. Unless he is an idiot. It's not likely he is trying to get readingf within a few feet to hde a cache.

Beside, lets face it , chances are that most terrorist already have a data base of buildings all over the world, letr alone DC.

 

20 minutes is to long to detain someone. I have been stoped twice in the past month while looking for urban caches, both stops lasted at the most 4 or 5 minutes. I just told the LEOs what I was doing and they said good luck on the search. If a LEO has to take 20 minutes to figure what someone is doing, well he is being a jerk or is an not qualified for the job.

Link to comment
Would you consider your rights to have been violated? After all you were just geocaching and not harming anyone. You may be upset that it took 20-30 minutes but I would be justified in doing what I did. I was protecting private property and because I saw that building everyday I knew people weren't supposed to be there after hours. I would have been well within my rights to do a quick investigation.

Emphasis in the quote is mine.

 

Indeed, I think the key word here is "supposed", Jeff. It depends on what you mean.

 

You say people are not supposed to be somewhere after hours. Who sez? If it is prohibited, you're absolutely right. The cacher shouldn't have been trespassing, and it is your job to deal with it as determined by law.

So yes, if that's what you mean with "supposed", then I have no argument.

 

But if with "supposed" you mean that the shop is closed, and that you're merely curious what that man might have been doing there after hours with that device in his hand, you might inquire like anyone else might do, but you have no right to hold him up against his will. If you think he has broken a it's your job to detain the guy. If you just think he's weird, don't bother him - you have no authority, not even to ask him to identify himself.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong!

 

I believe there are only two exceptions: One: when he's driving (I believe LEOs are always allowed to ask for a driver's drivers license). Two: under the provisions of the Patriot act, which allow locking up a person indefinitely, if it's a homeland security matter.

Link to comment
I then return to my car and try to run your license info on my MDT but after 5-10 minutes the MDT doesn't respond.

Well, if the MDT (whatever that is) does not respond that is your problem. I don't think I can be detained just because you guys have a lousy system that doesn't work. If you cannot check out my ID within 5 minutes then let me go. I have better things to do than waiting for your MDT that doesn't answer.

Link to comment
bugel-shunra Posted on Jan 27 2005, 03:25 PM

But if with "supposed" you mean that the shop is closed, and that you're merely curious what that man might have been doing there after hours with that device in his hand, you might inquire like anyone else might do, but you have no right to hold him up against his will. If you think he has broken a it's your job to detain the guy. If you just think he's weird, don't bother him - you have no authority, not even to ask him to identify himself.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong!

 

Respectfully, you are so wrong. What the courts have ruled many, many times is that the officer has a "community care taking" and a "night-watchman" function. It is his job, duty and "right" to contact and detain people under exactly those circumstances. That "right" was initially specifically given by the Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio and has been upheld consistently. Jeff35080's use of "supposed" in this instance refer's to what is normally expected. If what is observed can be articulated as outside of what is normal for that situation, an officer can, and should, act.

 

To bring this home for you, if this was your own business, would you want the cop to check out what the guy was doing? A perfect 100% of business owners I talk to say YES!

Link to comment
Me too... This is an important discussion to us.  If we're not free, we're not free to cache.

Cache or Die. What state has that on its license plates?

That wasn't how I meant it. Quit being arrogant.

I was simply giving a reason that this discussion was caching related.

Link to comment

I think the one problem is that all of the examples keep shifting a little bit and it does change how things are handled.

 

We started with a person that was by the first account in a public area during the day and just acting a little different. There have then been many twists in "what if" examples. To this last one where someone is creeping around private property after normal business hours.

 

Even for me I see a world of difference between those. Hey if I am creeping around at night on private property I expect I would have some kind of explaining to do. No I don't have to answer the questions but sometimes as was stated earlier you have to think about what is better for you. Sure make them haul me in and do the dance and in the end I will be walking away but I am not sure what the point I would be trying to make would be.

 

But in the first case no I am not explaining anything, leave me alone. I always have the choices and if I am right I will be walking away but I would have to consider the hassle factor and weigh it against the fun factor of messing with someone that has a little bit of power and wants push it around to see who has the bigger one.

Link to comment
Well, if the MDT (whatever that is) does not respond that is your problem. I don't think I can be detained just because you guys have a lousy system that doesn't work. If you cannot check out my ID within 5 minutes then let me go. I have better things to do than waiting for your MDT that doesn't answer.

 

An MDT is a mobile data terminal. It's not always possible to get the info back about your ID in five minutes. Things happen, servers go down technology isn't perfect especially in a mobile environment. We won't just let 'you go' because we don't get 30ms ping times from our MDTs just like we won't make you wait an enormous amount of time.

 

Your response to a real life scenario is somewhat childish. I was sincerely trying to give you a real life example about the hows and whys of why someone might be detained 20 mins or so.

 

Like I said, this thread is good since geocachers will eventually encounter an LEO, let's try to be mature and rational in our responses.

Link to comment
But if with "supposed" you mean that the shop is closed, and that you're merely curious what that man might have been doing there after hours with that device in his hand, you might inquire like anyone else might do, but you have no right to hold him up against his will. If you think he has broken a it's your job to detain the guy. If you just think he's weird, don't bother him - you have no authority, not even to ask him to identify himself

 

In my scenario I was referring to private property or public property that had posted hours of operation and in my scenario I would have both the right and responsibility to ensure the safety of the private or public property.

 

I can only respond to this thread based on the laws of the state where I live. I can not really comment on DC since I am not familiar with the laws there in the District.

 

I am simply trying to tell you how an average police officer that wasn't familiar with geocaching might react and what might happen during the encounter.

Link to comment

GrizzlyJohn Posted on Jan 27 2005, 03:58 PM

I would have to consider the hassle factor and weigh it against the fun factor of messing with someone that has a little bit of power and wants push it around to see who has the bigger one.

 

We know yours is bigger. We're just compensating. :P

 

Seriously, I don't want to just parrot the party line. On the face of it, the contact in the original post seems to be a bit lengthy and intrusive. Not to badmouth them, but the FBI is not exactly known for it's street cop abilities. It's a skill you develop from doing it every day for years and is completely different from a sit down in the office kind of interview. Like everything, some people are better at some things than others. When you don't do it right, it can come off like this one did for the original poster, arrogant and intrusive.

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