permission

[crssedup]

I'm new to this cool hobby. Who if any should I ask to search school yards.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Nugs Bunny]

Nugs, I consider metal detecting to be the most respectful thing anyone can do on any given location.



I don't disagree that there is bound to be someone out there who "cares". There is ALWAYS someone who "might gripe". I agree with you. And I also agree that it would be wonderful to get their love and approval (permission) AHEAD OF TIME. Who wouldn't want total concurrence from every last conceivable authority ? However, the devil is in the details: The minute you and I start running around to make sure everyone "signs off on it", you will invariably run into "no's", even though no specific rule exists that says such a thing. Deskbound persons can simply conjur up something else they think applies to the question (disturbing, altering, removing, harming earthworms, etc...) and give you the "safe" answer. So it's not that I don't wish every last person approved of me. I do. It's just that I've had to take a dose of reality, that it's simply impossible to get every last archie and gardener to love my chosen hobby.

There we go again exaggerating and making a simple process out to be an almost inconceivable one. "The minute you and I start running around to make sure everyone signs off on it"

One need only ask the school official in charge of the property... there is no list that requires dozens to sign giving permission... just one person!

Public Schools are PRIVATE property... there is no way to justify trespassing... I'm sorry.

Lot's of people get raped robbed and murdered in the hood and nobody cares... does this justify it?

So we should just ignore all the laws and lived based on whether or not really cares.... But that is exactly what law is... it's a written statement confirming indeed... somebody does care.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

..... One need only ask the school official in charge of the property... there is no list that requires dozens to sign giving permission... just one person! .....

Who would that "1 person" be ? Is the school custodian sufficient ? Afterall, he's tasked with mowing the lawn, right? How about the school security gaurd ? Afterall, he's the one who be booting you, if the mood struck him. How about if your wife is friends with one of the teachers there, and that teacher says "go ahead" ? Is that teacher authorized enough as an employee ? Or should it go to the principal of that school ? Afterall, he's higher than all those "mere employees" just mentioned.

BUT WAIT !! That principal is nothing more than a "mere employee" of the school district offices across town. So you better go higher than the principal. BUT WAIT ! Even that head-honcho district supervisor is at the behest of a board of trustees, who must vote on policies, decisions, changes, etc....

So who is the one ? If you say "the principal", then what do you do if the district level person drives by and reprimands you ? You whip out your permission slip, only to have it promptly revoked. So you slink away embarassed for not having ask high enough up the chain of command. Right ?

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Who would that "1 person" be ? Is the school custodian sufficient ? Afterall, he's tasked with mowing the lawn, right? How about the school security gaurd ? Afterall, he's the one who be booting you, if the mood struck him. How about if your wife is friends with one of the teachers there, and that teacher says "go ahead" ? Is that teacher authorized enough as an employee ? Or should it go to the principal of that school ? Afterall, he's higher than all those "mere employees" just mentioned.

BUT WAIT !! That principal is nothing more than a "mere employee" of the school district offices across town. So you better go higher than the principal. BUT WAIT ! Even that head-honcho district supervisor is at the behest of a board of trustees, who must vote on policies, decisions, changes, etc....

So who is the one ? If you say "the principal", then what do you do if the district level person drives by and reprimands you ? You whip out your permission slip, only to have it promptly revoked. So you slink away embarassed for not having ask high enough up the chain of command. Right ?

One would ask the superintendent of the schools for the district or the principal... either has legal authority to grant access to school property, at least according to the law.

It's no mystery as you try to make it out to be. The law clearly states the school officials for the district are considered the owner as far as trespassing is concerned.

From page 1 of this thread!

Code of Laws - Title 16 - Chapter 11 - Offenses Against Property
SECTION 16-11-530. Malicious injury to real property; school trustees deemed owners of school property.

For the purpose of determining whether or not any school property has been maliciously injured as the offense of malicious mischief is defined in Section 16-11-520 and as to whether or not there has been a trespass upon such property as this offense is defined in Section 16-11-600 and for all prosecutions under these penal statutes and other statutes of a like nature, the trustees of the respective school districts in this State in their official capacity shall be deemed to be the owners and possessors of all school property.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

One need only ask the school official in charge of the property... there is no list that requires dozens to sign giving permission... just one person!--Nugs Bunny

Without making any suggestions here, would you ask the school official the actual law or would you just ask to detect and avoid the legal aspect to get those coins out of the ground ?

This is a simple one... I see no reason to hunt schools unless they are old and abandoned... who cares about clad? Most common places have been picked over, that's why I focus on long forgotten private property lost to time in the woods and outskirts.

But the big question is whether or not you would ask permission... I guess that would depend if I'm asking you here... or over at the knitting forum where we BOTH are members!

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Your link Nugs is in reference to Malicious injury which I doubt metal detecting would be considered. As for trespass your link refers one to this-"after notice from the owner or tenant prohibiting such entry"
I'm not suggesting anyone detect in South Carolina based solely on the information you provided even though it does give the impression that one might be okay detecting a school unless they were told to leave and didn't obey.

Maybe you should keep reading.... it clearly states "and as to whether or not there has been a trespass upon such property"

If one reads the ENTIRE statement as provided in the code it's very clear it ALSO pertains to trespass and for all prosecutions of a like nature.

Here is the specific part I'm referring too and here are the specific codes in their entirety.

For the purpose of determining whether or not any school property has been maliciously injured as the offense of malicious mischief is defined in Section 16-11-520 and as to whether or not there has been a trespass upon such property as this offense is defined in Section 16-11-600 and for all prosecutions under these penal statutes and other statutes of a like nature

SECTION 16-11-530. Malicious injury to real property; school trustees deemed owners of school property.

For the purpose of determining whether or not any school property has been maliciously injured as the offense of malicious mischief is defined in Section 16-11-520 and as to whether or not there has been a trespass upon such property as this offense is defined in Section 16-11-600 and for all prosecutions under these penal statutes and other statutes of a like nature, the trustees of the respective school districts in this State in their official capacity shall be deemed to be the owners and possessors of all school property.

SECTION 16-11-520. Malicious injury to tree, house, outside fence, or fixture; trespass upon real property.

(A) It is unlawful for a person to wilfully and maliciously cut, mutilate, deface, or otherwise injure a tree, house, outside fence, or fixture of another or commit any other trespass upon real property of another.

SECTION 16-11-600. Entry on another's pasture or other lands after notice; posting notice.

Every entry upon the lands of another where any horse, mule, cow, hog or any other livestock is pastured, or any other lands of another, after notice from the owner or tenant prohibiting such entry, shall be a misdemeanor and be punished by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment with hard labor on the public works of the county for not exceeding thirty days. When any owner or tenant of any lands shall post a notice in four conspicuous places on the borders of such land prohibiting entry thereon, a proof of the posting shall be deemed and taken as notice conclusive against the person making entry, as aforesaid, for the purpose of trespassing.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

I've read those and that is what I referenced and stated my opinion on in post # 57. I stand by my opinion.

Because you are only reading the first 15 words of the sentence... continue reading until you get to the period...

I edited it to make a little easier to understand... Don't take that as an insult... but you honestly have given the impression that you did not understand that rather long, yet very simple sentence.

For the purpose of determining whether or not any school property has been maliciously injured... and as to whether or not there has been a trespass upon such property... the trustees of the respective school districts in this State in their official capacity shall be deemed to be the owners and possessors of all school property.

Now here is the unedited version, as anyone can see they are citing the specific sections 16-11-520 and 16-11-600 both of which are posted in post #58

For the purpose of determining whether or not any school property has been maliciously injured as the offense of malicious mischief is defined in Section 16-11-520 and as to whether or not there has been a trespass upon such property as this offense is defined in Section 16-11-600 and for all prosecutions under these penal statutes and other statutes of a like nature, the trustees of the respective school districts in this State in their official capacity shall be deemed to be the owners and possessors of all school property.

You can stand by your opinion all you like... but it's crystal clear you're opinion is 100% incorrect. But that's what makes it all so entertaining!

 

[cudamark]

Then obviously you didn't look past the first one... but that's no surprise... you've made a determination before you clicked a single link...

How about a student of the school who entered the school early?




The examples provided were to support my statement, "one would be charged with trespassing and not metal detecting"... as metal detecting in itself is not a crime.

Those were off page one of my search... if you want cases when school wasn't in session I'm sure it would be no problem to find such if bother to search.

Something tells me this still would not be good enough for you... perhaps the perp was wearing a blue shirt and those were gang colors...

So now I must find cases where the guy wasn't wearing a blue shirt... then what will it be next?

The simple fact is that a no trespassing sign means just that. When it comes to trespassing the school officials are considered the owners not the public. So in all legality a PUBLIC school is considered PRIVATE property...

But I wouldn't expect any of you three to ask permission... it's clear where you guys stand when it comes to ethics, common courtesy and respect...

I actually read each and every one of them contrary to your skepticism. My take on this one you cited was that the teen entered the building and was caught on security cameras. The article was too short to get any other details about the incident but it's interesting that virtually all the cases you cited involved teens or young adults with other violations involved and not older folks using metal detectors. School grounds have been a tried and true recreational area for people as long as I can remember. I find it hard to believe (and still have yet to see any proof) that responsible metal detecting on open grounds when school is not in session would result in a "malicious injury to real property" charge without there being some other underlying criminal offense involved. If you're making a mess, sure, someone will get indignant and either run you off or call the cops to do it for them. If you're carefully making clean recoveries, at most you will be asked to stop and to leave. The chances of getting arrested are so slim as to be virtually non-existent unless you mouth off or cause some other kind of problem. When I see schools with a high fence and locked up like a bank, I pass it by, but, if the gate is open and others are using the facilities, I'm going to use it too. If they're all that concerned about it, I figure they'll lock the place up and keep EVERYONE out. Until they do, they're not serious about it enough to worry about.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

nugs and mark, you guys are great writers, great thinkers, and do a great job at scrutinizing this. It reads like a Supreme Court case. Good material. Good food for thought. Thanx for taking the time to type it all out. I even mean that about opinions which don't necessarily fit my "convenience" (ie.: evidence suggesting that we can't help ourselves to school yards). Thanx guys !