Jump to content

Geocaching, Dc, & The Fbi


traeumer

Recommended Posts

I do not believe that it is reasonable to suspect that I may be involved in an illegal activity simply because I use a gpsr and a pda while visiting tourist spots in DC.

Exactally how many tourist do you think go around with GPSr and PDA in hand?

I'd think someone geocaching would standout in a group of tourists as different.

Link to comment
Like I said, I don't know the laws of DC ...

We all know about the laws in DC. If you are a crack smoking mayor you can still hold public office. :lol:

 

So has any one seen a crack smoking mayor on the trails while caching? I am just trying to keep it on topic. Hey it's all I got.

Thats the best post in this thread :P:P:lol::lol::mad:

 

Maybe DC needs a Marion Barry cache (Not sure of the spelling on his name)

Link to comment
Anyway, after reading this thread, I decided not to go geocaching to DC...

Come on we can go together. You'll have a story for the grandkids.

 

:P

Actually, I've been trying to get to DC for some caching too. Let's see, I can converse in Spanish and German. How about you two? Think we could get some strange looks? Twenty something years ago, I toured DC with a friend from Chile where we conversed mainly in Spanish. We got really strange looks from security then. I bet I could do better now.

 

Terri

 

A native Marylander but a military linguist. (sometimes)

Link to comment
I like caching, I like it a lot. :P:P

 

Actually, this all serves as a reminder to everybody. You're technically supposed to have a picture ID on you at all times, even if you are not driving. Granted, this is not practical in some situations, but obviously when you are traveling, you should have it on you. You need to be able to prove who you are at all times.

Ambrosia, what's the basis for that statement?

 

US Citizens are not required to have proof of identity on them. Moreover, they are not even required to own one.

 

Yes, they are required to have a drivers license when they drive, and there are particular circumstances where presentation of a "picture ID" is required by law, but these are not situation you are ever required to be in. Even if you want to ride your bicycle from Wenatchee to across the country all the way to Florida, or hitch hike - as long as you're not driving, or using air planes, and as long as you don't break any law, you don't need to identify yourself, to anyone.

 

That's legally.

 

Of course, being able to identify yourself might save you a lot of trouble is an officer is suspecting you of something, but that's a different discussion, and we should not mix those two.

 

I will go out of my way to voluntarily cooperate with any LEO.

I will not put up with a situation, however, in which any government agency is infringing on my constitutional liberties.

Link to comment
I like caching, I like it a lot.  :P  :P

 

Actually, this all serves as a reminder to everybody.  You're technically supposed to have a picture ID on you at all times, even if you are not driving.  Granted, this is not practical in some situations, but obviously when you are traveling, you should have it on you.  You need to be able to prove who you are at all times.

Ambrosia, what's the basis for that statement?

 

US Citizens are not required to have proof of identity on them. Moreover, they are not even required to own one.

 

Yes, they are required to have a drivers license when they drive, and there are particular circumstances where presentation of a "picture ID" is required by law, but these are not situation you are ever required to be in. Even if you want to ride your bicycle from Wenatchee to across the country all the way to Florida, or hitch hike - as long as you're not driving, or using air planes, and as long as you don't break any law, you don't need to identify yourself, to anyone.

 

That's legally.

 

Of course, being able to identify yourself might save you a lot of trouble is an officer is suspecting you of something, but that's a different discussion, and we should not mix those two.

 

I will go out of my way to voluntarily cooperate with any LEO.

I will not put up with a situation, however, in which any government agency is infringing on my constitutional liberties.

Read all the posts after that one. :lol:

Link to comment
We have no knowledge of what information the FBI officials were actually acting upon when they first approached traeumer. For all we know, there was someone they were looking for that had the characteristics as that of traeumer at they time they stopped him for questioning.

But according to the OP, the FBI people said: "We talk to anyone with a GPS or PDA who has been in the vicinity of multiple federal buildings."

 

So if you have a GPS or a PDA on you and you are near several federal buildings, you are suspicious. I don't know what the suspicion is but, you are suspicious.

Link to comment

Which is why I feel that 30 minutes was way too long to detain. The conversation should have been over with two questions. 1) Whatcha doin? 2) What's that? 3) Oh. Have fun.

 

They could still watch him if they wanted to.

 

edit to fix yet another typo. You are getting very sleeeepy...

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

While your approach would probably have fulfilled their requirements for talking to him, sbell, I also don't see that the described encounter was unreasonable either.

 

If anyone has ever gotten a traffic ticket, you can relate to how long things can take when info is needed from a person...and that's not even national security related.

Link to comment
I like caching, I like it a lot.  :P  :P

 

Actually, this all serves as a reminder to everybody.  You're technically supposed to have a picture ID on you at all times, even if you are not driving.  Granted, this is not practical in some situations, but obviously when you are traveling, you should have it on you.  You need to be able to prove who you are at all times.

Ambrosia, what's the basis for that statement?

 

US Citizens are not required to have proof of identity on them. Moreover, they are not even required to own one.

 

Yes, they are required to have a drivers license when they drive, and there are particular circumstances where presentation of a "picture ID" is required by law, but these are not situation you are ever required to be in. Even if you want to ride your bicycle from Wenatchee to across the country all the way to Florida, or hitch hike - as long as you're not driving, or using air planes, and as long as you don't break any law, you don't need to identify yourself, to anyone.

 

That's legally.

 

Of course, being able to identify yourself might save you a lot of trouble is an officer is suspecting you of something, but that's a different discussion, and we should not mix those two.

 

I will go out of my way to voluntarily cooperate with any LEO.

I will not put up with a situation, however, in which any government agency is infringing on my constitutional liberties.

Read all the posts after that one. :lol:

I did. You keep saying - correctly - that it's smart to have an ID on you

You also keep saying - wrongly, as confirmed even by our local LEO - that there is a legal requirement to that effect.

 

The purpose of my post was to ppint out that these are two entirely different issues, and one shouldn't mix them up :lol:

Edited by bugel-shunra
Link to comment

I tell ya...a lot of the responses on this topic kinda has me wondering about the Geocaching community. They seem pretty harsh for a 20 minute Q/A session of which we really don't know the complete story.

 

For those that say they would not have put up with it and just walked away. WOuld you REALLY do that if you were actually standing there be asked the questions? I seriously doubt it.

 

If you, indeed, felt that authority stepped in and infringed on rights. How is that any different when a forum admin just "feels" like rules were violated in a thread such as the one about a "World Cache" and simply closes the topic? To me, that was pretty harsh treatment (and comments towards the original poster) by the Forum Admin.

 

- GeoMike

Link to comment
Anyway, after reading this thread, I decided not to go geocaching to DC...

Come on we can go together. You'll have a story for the grandkids.

 

:P

Actually, I've been trying to get to DC for some caching too. Let's see, I can converse in Spanish and German. How about you two? Think we could get some strange looks? Twenty something years ago, I toured DC with a friend from Chile where we conversed mainly in Spanish. We got really strange looks from security then. I bet I could do better now.

 

Terri

 

A native Marylander but a military linguist. (sometimes)

Those DC hicks. You'd think that they'd never seen or heard a furrin type person talking funny, huh?

 

Speaking Spanish in DC, how strange. I can just imagine how they might have reacted to German.

Link to comment

If you, indeed, felt that authority stepped in and infringed on rights. How is that

any different when a forum admin just "feels" like rules were violated in a thread such as the one about a "World Cache" and simply closes the topic? To me, that was pretty harsh treatment (and comments towards the original poster) by the Forum Admin.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges, the forums are part of a private company and being a private company Groundspeak has the option is running the forums as they see fit. I know because I have had my run in the Admins. on the past.

 

As far as having one right infringed upon, in the real world at least the USA we have rights given to us in the Bill of rights (Ever hear of that) These rights are there to protect people from be unjustly treated by those in authority. This is a concept that those that are in authority on a federal level do not support for the most part regardless of which party they are with.

 

The US congress, a rudderless boat in a see of apathy

Link to comment

www.archives.gov January 27, 2005

 

 

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

 

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment I

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment II

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment III

 

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment V

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment VI

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment VII

 

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment VIII

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment IX

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Link to comment

ok i've not read every post in this thread as it seems to have stirred a hornets nest. i'm ex police from the uk. i have to say i'd rather be stopped and asked what i'm upto than have someone ignore a potential burglar/mugger/terrorist. no police can't tell the difference between a suspicious person and a geocacher and anyone who can please contact your local police. they will be overjoyed to learn the secret and save themselves loads of time aswell as not having to disturb innocent people anymore.

maybe you can tell because their eyes are too close together or something?

 

the main point is that as long as the questions are asked politely and no one is assaulted in the process then does it really matter that you have been stopped for a couple of minutes? one day the policeman might do that to the mugger who was about to hit your wife/mother/daughter over the head. think about it.

 

i'm not saying we should give up our liberties in exchange for safety, just that we need to balance and be practical. criminals/terrosists do not have a big bad guy sign, police cannot read minds they have to stop and chat with people to see.

 

there's always going to be 1 bad apple in a 100. don't assume that because you've met one bad cop they all are. are all african descendent people drug dealers? have all jews got big noses? stereotyping leads to disputes and conflict.

 

my 2p worth

Link to comment

I was about to agree with the posters who suggest that the average terrorist probably doesn't need to check out the exact GPS location of his target before bombing it.

 

Then I remembered this incident, where the USAF destroyed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, by (essentially) assuming that if a block runs from house numbers 1 to 31, that number 11 must be one-third of the way down. The report makes quite interesting reading, once you wade through the language used.

 

Presumably a terrorist who cared about exactly which target he hit, would want to do a better job. I'm sure there are some that do, notably your more political anti-"gubmint", McVeigh types; probably your fanatical Muslim who just hates the West doesn't care too much, he's going to heaven with 72 virgins either way. On that basis, the ex-military-looking type with the GPS gets bumped another place up the "suspicious" list, I guess.

Link to comment
For those that say they would not have put up with it and just walked away. WOuld you REALLY do that if you were actually standing there be asked the questions? I seriously doubt it.

Of course they wouldn't walk away from an FBI agent. Most people left on this thread are simply arguing because they enjoy it, and like being "larger than life" behind a computer monitor.

Link to comment
Of course they wouldn't walk away from an FBI agent. Most people left on this thread are simply arguing because they enjoy it, and like being "larger than life" behind a computer monitor.

Speak for yourself.

 

Ask if you are a suspect or under arrest. If the answer is no to both questions then walk away. Best thing is to talk with a lawyer in your state see how the law applies there. Then use that to consider how to conduct yourself.

 

One other point, remember the police can lie to you. So don't always think because they tell you you have to do something that you do. Know and understand the law. I have found that some people who have some degree of power use that fact to intimidate people into doing something they do not have to. And by intimidate it can be as little as being there with a badge and a gun for some people that is very scary.

Link to comment
...

For those that say they would not have put up with it and just walked away. WOuld you REALLY do that if you were actually standing there be asked the questions? I seriously doubt it.

...

Very few people said that they would just walk away (although my wife and I did that with some police in Rome, but that's a different story).

 

I see nothing wrong in inquiring as to whether you are free to go. Incidently, if the answer is no, this will be very important if you decide to take further legal action. Certainly, if they tell you that you can't leave, the best advice is to stick around and answer their silly questions. There will be plenty of time to raise h**l after the fact.

Link to comment
Like I said, I don't know the laws of DC ...

We all know about the laws in DC. If you are a crack smoking mayor you can still hold public office. :P

 

So has any one seen a crack smoking mayor on the trails while caching? I am just trying to keep it on topic. Hey it's all I got.

Thats the best post in this thread <_<:blink:B):blink::tired:

 

Maybe DC needs a Marion Barry cache (Not sure of the spelling on his name)

Yes, yes, I can see my log for that cache now:

 

"Found January 28, 2005 by ParrotRob

 

What an interesting multi-cache. The stop at City Hall was nice but I really enjoyed the federal penitentiary and the walking tour "Crack Houses of Southeast DC".

 

I think if I were the cache owner, I would upgrade the terrain rating to 4 or 5, mainly because of all the bullet-dodging required to reach the final cache location. I would also advise future cachers to REMOVE your hubcaps and car stereo BEFORE setting out for this one (lessons learned!).

 

Took crack pipe and 9mm pistol, left bail money and business card with phone numbers for local prostitutes. Thanks for the cache!

 

PS - I also picked up the "Philandering Executive" TB - will try to get him closer to his goal of the Clinton presidential library. "

 

B)

Link to comment

I find it comical that everyone is crying out about rights being violated because the cacher was questioned for 20 minutes, by the FBI. Maybe you should re-read this thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=83305

 

20 minutes worth of questioning is nothing compared to the ordeal this cacher endured.

 

Log by Otter and Lemur.

The Los Angeles International Airport Police, in whose custody I just spent the last four hours -- much of it handcuffed and in the back of a patrol car or in a holding cell -- would like this cache, which was located in a restricted area on a closed road next to the airport proper, archived NOW

I could give MUCH more detail, but suffice it to say that after finding the cache and strolling off down the closed-off road next to the airport, I was spotted by two uniformed LAPD motorcycle officers, who detained me, then called in the cavalry; at one point I believe there were about ten cars present, all there for me. The FBI eventually showed up as well. None of them had heard of geocaching, although I did eventually get them to go to geocaching.com and read about the hobby; I think the pages they printed off from the site were what eventually got them to realize I wasn't a terrorist. It was a close thing, though, from what I was able to glean from eavesdropping. I am, frankly, amazed that I'm not under arrest instead of sitting here in my hotel room frantically writing a "should be archived" message.

 

An airport perimeter the night before a national election is, evidently, a bad place to be found strolling blithely around with a GPSr in hand.

 

To make a long story short, none of the law enforcement authorities were amused by a geocache located in an area marked "restricted area, no loitering", right next to the airport. They were astonished and amazed by the sheer number of finds; they photocopied BOTH logbooks. EVERY SINGLE PAGE of both logbooks. They also examined all the travel bugs. Then they did it all over again. They were very, very, very thorough. I was one scared cacher.

 

Then, when they finally let me go, they had me take the cache, and ALL the bugs, and told me not to let it be found near the airport again. I'm catching a plane home to Vermont in a few hours, so unfortunately that means that all the bugs, even the ones that wanted to visit California or points south or west, are unfortunately going to get a November trip to Vermont.

 

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment
I find it comical that everyone is crying out about rights being violated because the cacher was questioned for 20 minutes, by the FBI. Maybe you should re-read this thread.  http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=83305

 

20 minutes worth of questioning is nothing compared to the ordeal this cacher endured.

Yea but again this is a little different. It was in an area that was marked restricted and no loitering.

 

Maybe more than anything is their thinking about how many people got into this area before this cacher without being caught.

Edited by GrizzlyJohn
Link to comment

The little road was closed off to vehicular traffic, but still used by area bike riders, joggers, and dog walkers. It was not really an issue of people 'getting into the area'. There is a big difference between 'no trespassing' and 'no loitering'.

 

BUT, that was a different issue and not the subject of this thread. <_<

 

edited to respond to added coment above.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

h1GnGgoofus.gifGallant enjoys caching in our nation's capitol for virtuals, wears a 'Geocaching T-shirt & hat & sensible shoes, prints out Geocaching-U info. brochure & cache pages, copy of The-Bill-of-Rights, carries his I.D. on him.

 

h1GnGgoofus.gif

Goofus hates virtual caching, but says what the #$%*, I'm here to get crack, wears dark sunglasses, overcoat, carries GPSr & PDA in a shinny metal brief case, and leaves I.D. behind cause he can't get all the residue from last night's party off of it.

 

 

 

<_<

Link to comment
h1GnGgoofus.gifGallant enjoys caching in our nation's capitol for virtuals, wears a 'Geocaching T-shirt & hat & sensible shoes, prints out Geocaching-U info. brochure & cache pages, copy of The-Bill-of-Rights, carries his I.D. on him.

 

h1GnGgoofus.gif

Goofus hates virtual caching, but says what the #$%*, I'm here to get crack, wears dark sunglasses, overcoat, carries GPSr & PDA in a shinny metal brief case, and leaves I.D. behind cause he can't get all the residue from last night's party off of it.

 

 

 

:)

:)

Link to comment
Reasonable suspicion?

 

Where I live and work we don't have such a thing.... we have probable cause. I can't detain someone based on suspicion. I must have probable cause or a warrant.

 

Dare I ask where in the USA someone can be detained for reasonable suspicion?

A closed and posted US military post. We have signs at all entrances stating that all persons entering are subject to search at any time. We had a briefing by the AUSA and found out all we had to have was “reasonable suspicion” to detain and search. You pretty much surrender your 4th admendment rights at the gate. Of course, after 12 hours we were required to charge the individual or kick them loose.

 

Here is where most of the authority comes from” 50 USC 797:

 

§ 797. Security regulations and orders; penalty for violation

Release date: 2003-08-01

 

(a) Whoever willfully shall violate any such regulation or order as, pursuant to lawful authority, shall be or has been promulgated or approved by the Secretary of Defense, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Director of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, for the protection or security of military or naval aircraft, airports, airport facilities, vessels, harbors, ports, piers, water-front facilities, bases, forts, posts, laboratories, stations, vehicles, equipment, explosives, or other property or places subject to the jurisdiction, administration, or in the custody of the Department of Defense, any Department or agency of which said Department consists, or any officer or employee of said Department or agency, or of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics or any officer or employee thereof, relating to fire hazards, fire protection, lighting, machinery, guard service, disrepair, disuse or other unsatisfactory conditions thereon, or the ingress thereto or egress or removal of persons therefrom, or otherwise providing for safeguarding the same against destruction, loss, or injury by accident or by enemy action, sabotage or other subversive actions, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(:) Every such regulation or order shall be posted in conspicuous and appropriate places.

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