Detecting permission/ or not on land for sale

[MissIron.Maiden]

There are some old farm properties near me . Where there are 100's of acres of land for sale. The only houses on the land look so derelict that it's hard to imagine they could be occupied. Curtains blowing out broken windows. Junkers rusting out in the yard. The signs for the property have been up so long they are falling down n barley readable. If I avoid the house ( because if it is inhabited , it's not by anyone I'd want to run Into ) and stick to further away fields do I really have to ask permission?
I've done the route of calling the realtors on such properties and get a blank answer . Basically an answer that sounds like " why are you bothering me with this ?" And without even saying it, no is implied.
The land will go to developers. , who couldn't give a damn about history. So would it still be like I wAs stealing? It's just such a waste to not try to save some history.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rangerbb]

Permission is always best so your not looking over your shoulder all the time. But I've metal detected places exactly like you mentioned and had no problems. However I would at least try to find out who the owner of the land is by looking up in your county gis tax maps most are available online.

 

[capt. jas.]

Permission to hunt on private property is not only best but required.

 

[Eddie Current]

I would not dig without permission as I do not want to get involved with potential legal issues with my hobby. Look for other dirt to dig.

 

[dholland02]

Look online for a local tax map u can see who owns it. If it's under bank ownership or a developer name is on it, I would hunt it with a question.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Miss-iron-maiden, you have to realize that when you ask a question like this on an open public forum ..... it's to be expected that the answers you will get ....... have to be "don't do it". I mean, it's like asking on a public forum: "Can I go 56 mph in a 55 mph zone?". Naturally the answer is "no you can't. Please obey the speed limit".

Thus here's the obligatory answer: "no you can't". And shame on rangerBB for saying he goes to derelict abandonded spots like that. But if ranger boxes up and sends me all his finds, I will absolve his conscience of all guilt. It's the least I can do for the furtherance of our fine hobby

 

[Fletch88]

Look online for a local tax map u can see who owns it. If it's under bank ownership or a developer name is on it, I would hunt it with a question.

I second that answer. As Tom always says, look long and hard enough and you'll get a "no" eventually.

 

[MissIron.Maiden]

I second that answer. As Tom always says, look long and hard enough and you'll get a "no" eventually.

Agreed this has happened enough to me, that this is exactly what happens. It's land nobody gives a fart about, unless they think you could be getting something they might want. Eventually it's gonna be torn apart n bulldozed in McMansion full of peoeple who don't really care what history took place where their home sits.
However saying that, I would feel utterly paranoid the whole time without permission. But I guarantee permission isn't going to happen. My worst fear would be finding something g of great value ... Then what? Then it'd feel stolen ... Uuhhgggggg.

 

[danloop]

You can't tell. The owner might live across or down the road.

 

[Rangerbb]

Miss-iron-maiden, you have to realize that when you ask a question like this on an open public forum ..... it's to be expected that the answers you will get ....... have to be "don't do it". I mean, it's like asking on a public forum: "Can I go 56 mph in a 55 mph zone?". Naturally the answer is "no you can't. Please obey the speed limit".

Thus here's the obligatory answer: "no you can't". And shame on rangerBB for saying he goes to derelict abandonded spots like that. But if ranger boxes up and sends me all his finds, I will absolve his conscience of all guilt. It's the least I can do for the furtherance of our fine hobby

It's all good turns out it belonged to my long lost uncle...

 

[alb1]

Ive got kind of the same issue here. There was a home that was demolished, property was originally late 1940's. Id really love to hunt it, but there is no one to ask permission too. trespassing, is trespassing.

 

[Tnmountains]

I have called the Realtor on the sign and gained permission. I said I was a neighbor.My advantage is having a real estate lisc though… Use your best judgement and be safe. Might call and ask if it is for sale and ask if you can stop by and look at it. Then throw in "Do you mind me detecting while there? I rarely get a no. I knock on doors. In Todays finds you will see the guys that find stuff all the time and they have gotten permission from one that leads to another. I have no problem hunting creeks that wind through the cities and country. Semi navigable . I do not ask permission to hunt those just gain a safe way in and out.
As someone who leases thousands of acres I tend to go after trespassers. So I keep that in mind when I choose a place to hunt.
Good luck!

 

[ivan salis]

why are you asking us to OK your knowingly illegal trespass ? -- what we think does not matter -- the law is the law -- to go upon a piece of private property to metal detect requires "land owner' ok --to do so otherwise is trespass and to remove anything off the land without ok is theft--it is that plain and simple.

 

[danloop]

I have called the Realtor on the sign and gained permission. I said I was a neighbor.My advantage is having a real estate lisc though... Use your best judgement and be safe. Might call and ask if it is for sale and ask if you can stop by and look at it. Then throw in "Do you mind me detecting while there?
As someone who leases thousands of acres I tend to go after trespassers. So I keep that in mind when I choose a place to hunt.
Good luck!

Gaining access with a lie and unethical use of a realtor license. Yet you go after trespassers when it is your property being subverted.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Gaining access with a lie and unethical use of a realtor license. Yet you go after trespassers when it is your property being subverted.

Interesting danloop. A "lie", in that .... admittedly, the person asking "can I go take a look at the property you have listed for sale" and "do you mind if I take a walk around, not inside the building at this point, but just to get closer, walk around the yard, etc.. ?" The average realtor would readily say "sure! help yourself". Why? Because he's hoping he's going to get an eventual sale. Ie.: the more persons look at a place, the odds go up for an eventual sale. I haven't met a realtor yet that would argue with someone wanting a "closer look". And if it didn't involve them needing to be there (like to open the doors) because you're merely going to inspect the exterior yards at the time, then .... sure, I suppose we could label that as a "lie" right? Why? Because the person doing so has utterly no intention of buying.

So with this given as a premise, what do you do with this situation: There are actually people with no intention of buying houses, that routinely do the "open house" routes in high rent valuable enclaves. My wife is one of them, who enjoys no-end to "see what's inside". You know, like to look at how they've decorated it. To see how it compares to our own home (so as to have a perpetual feeling for value, decorating ideas, etc...). It bores the heck out of me, of course, but .... to come people (the likes of which watch those real estate "flipping" type shows on TV) it's almost a hobby, of sorts.

Ok, you tell me: then if those persons going into open houses, yet with utterly no intent to buy, does that make them guilty of lying ?

 

[danloop]

Interesting danloop. A "lie", in that .... admittedly, the person asking "can I go take a look at the property you have listed for sale" and "do you mind if I take a walk around, not inside the building at this point, but just to get closer, walk around the yard, etc.. ?" The average realtor would readily say "sure! help yourself". Why? Because he's hoping he's going to get an eventual sale. Ie.: the more persons look at a place, the odds go up for an eventual sale. I haven't met a realtor yet that would argue with someone wanting a "closer look". And if it didn't involve them needing to be there (like to open the doors) because you're merely going to inspect the exterior yards at the time, then .... sure, I suppose we could label that as a "lie" right? Why? Because the person doing so has utterly no intention of buying.

So with this given as a premise, what do you do with this situation: There are actually people with no intention of buying houses, that routinely do the "open house" routes in high rent valuable enclaves. My wife is one of them, who enjoys no-end to "see what's inside". You know, like to look at how they've decorated it. To see how it compares to our own home (so as to have a perpetual feeling for value, decorating ideas, etc...). It bores the heck out of me, of course, but .... to come people (the likes of which watch those real estate "flipping" type shows on TV) it's almost a hobby, of sorts.

Ok, you tell me: then if those persons going into open houses, yet with utterly no intent to buy, does that make them guilty of lying ?

Great question. The open house is an offer without restriction so your intent is not required. The only way you could lie in your circumstance is if you said something like "I want to buy this house."

If you gain access with intent to steal, there isn't much to defend.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If you gain access with intent to steal, there isn't much to defend.

ah, good point. The act of walking there, and/or swinging a detector isn't going to subject to "defense". You're merely "inpsecting/looking" as you said you were going to do. But the minute you remove something (a coin or pulltab), then sure, you've "stolen".

What's wierd is, not a single person on this forum (I would hope) would ever have the ability to take something off someone's night stand. We would all inherently know that's "stealing". Or to take something out of a city's museum's display (say, a coin for instance) when no one's looking. All of us would recognize as "wrong". Yet for some reason, we see some sort of difference when that same coin is in the park's ground. Why? I suppose because it's almost as if it didn't exist, till it was brought-to-light. Ie.: "who's been harmed?". But sure, technically you're right. When it comes to defence, technically whether an item is a known item (the coin on the nightstand or in the museum cabinet) is every bit as much property items as something un-known in the ground.

 

[el padron]

ah, good point. The act of walking there, and/or swinging a detector isn't going to subject to "defense". You're merely "inpsecting/looking" as you said you were going to do. But the minute you remove something (a coin or pulltab), then sure, you've "stolen".

What's wierd is, not a single person on this forum (I would hope) would ever have the ability to take something off someone's night stand. We would all inherently know that's "stealing". Or to take something out of a city's museum's display (say, a coin for instance) when no one's looking. All of us would recognize as "wrong". Yet for some reason, we see some sort of difference when that same coin is in the park's ground. Why? I suppose because it's almost as if it didn't exist, till it was brought-to-light. Ie.: "who's been harmed?". But sure, technically you're right. When it comes to defence, technically whether an item is a known item (the coin on the nightstand or in the museum cabinet) is every bit as much property items as something un-known in the ground.

Its really very very simple, If you have your equipment with you on private property without permission, you are breaking the law. It's as simple as that. If you are charged with an infraction and you are smart or your time is more then worthless, you will pay a fine and move on. If you are charged with a misdemeanor, you will be offered a "deal i.e., many hours of community service, or possible reduction to infraction etc.... Either way once the citation is issued, an attorney is very costly, a public defender will not sincerely communicate on your behalf until she is absolutely sure that you won't plead out and save her a boatload of work.
If you choose to defend yourself in front of a jury for the misdemeanor through a public defender, you will have had to go to court at least 4 or five times, (god forbid you are late or forget about an appointment etc.....) many hours, etc.... By this time by law you will have had to inform any governing sources of pending legal action pertaining to professional licenses that you may or may not have .....
There are so many ways around the "right to a speedy trial" rules.

The bottom line is it is silly to debate endless scenarios pertaining to trespassing with the intent to remove anything from a site.
It really doesn't matter how you express your intentions.
It is the legal process, regardless of outcome that is where the punishment lies....

 

[danloop]

Well, that's what forums are for. Discussion, debate. If we all agreed, shared the same opinions, and knew as much as the next guy, it would be a boring forum.

 

[Muddyhandz]

ah, good point. The act of walking there, and/or swinging a detector isn't going to subject to "defense". You're merely "inpsecting/looking" as you said you were going to do. But the minute you remove something (a coin or pulltab), then sure, you've "stolen".

What's wierd is, not a single person on this forum (I would hope) would ever have the ability to take something off someone's night stand. We would all inherently know that's "stealing". Or to take something out of a city's museum's display (say, a coin for instance) when no one's looking. All of us would recognize as "wrong". Yet for some reason, we see some sort of difference when that same coin is in the park's ground. Why? I suppose because it's almost as if it didn't exist, till it was brought-to-light. Ie.: "who's been harmed?". But sure, technically you're right. When it comes to defence, technically whether an item is a known item (the coin on the nightstand or in the museum cabinet) is every bit as much property items as something un-known in the ground.

Tom, you are a master of scenarios however, this is all for naught as the subject is about PRIVATE PROPERTY not parks.
Why would we feel guilty about taking finds from a park?

Let me try painting a scenario......

I notice an old farm house out in the rural backroads that no one is currently living at and the nearest neighbors are several miles away.
When I enter the property, I notice a padlock on the door and think that no one will bother me as I give the yard a try.
After a days work, I head home with a small pile of old coins, some jewelry, and a few collectibles that appear to be from the early 20th century.
A good haul to most but not all that satisfying to a relic hunter who focuses mainly on the 18th century.
A week later, I've got nothing really good to hunt that day, so I decide to try that old farmhouse again and drive out.
Upon arriving, there's a vehicle in the driveway and I realize it's the owners.
Now I have a chance to finally ask and get permission and go to talk to a middle aged man in the front yard.
As I'm talking to him, a little boy comes out hobbling on crutches to join the conversation.
The nice owner explains that his son "Tiny Tim" has been saving money for years to buy his first detector because his dream is to search his family's farm house to find things that his dad, uncles, and grandparents may have lost so he could make a special family display for future generations.
I wish them well and leave to find somewhere else to hunt.
That night in bed, I can't stop thinking about those coins, jewelry pieces, old toys and collectibles that mean very little to me and how exciting those finds would have been to that little boy.
This my friend, is a story about stealing and the guilt that follows.
Everyone needs a good night's sleep!
Cheers,
Dave.