tickets and fines for detecting

[Nugs Bunny]

Scott, thanx for posting. Interesting story. All I can say to this, is that flukes exist. Just like my post about the guy who "got a ticket" for eating a hamburger while driving: Flukes exist. There's ALWAYS going to be stories that will circulate, about people getting "roughed up" for silly things, by over-zealous cops. But I see them as just that: "Flukes". It will not change my behavior (as if I fear that a "ticket" or "arrest" is imminent now), any-more-so than seeing the clipping about the guy ticketed for the hamburger will cause me to stop eating while I drive. Sure I'll be a little more careful to stay within the lines while I drive with my knee ..... but no, I'm not going to stop eating as I drive.

In the same way, an occasional fluke story like yours, does not equate to "imminent threat of danger of tickets for md'ing".

And now that the over-zealous cop in your story works somewhere else, I'd return to "business as normal", if I were in that area. I do not see such flukes as constituting a "new rule". To me, they're just flukes, and nothing more.

How do you figure it's a fluke? Did you miss post #58 and #59? Clearly two separate incidents that involve a seemingly innocuous place as you asked in your OP.

You asked... I delivered now let's not ignore the topic of this thread or these arrests...

Treasure Hunter Arrested for Trespassing and False ID | Upper Saucon, PA Patch

Treasure Hunter Arrested for Trespassing and False ID

Donald Krenitsky III is charged with impersonation after stealing three pennies, two quarters, four dimes and an old coin from a back yard on Station Avenue.
A Quakertown man was charged with false reports to law enforcement, giving false identification to law enforcement, theft and disorderly conduct after allegedly trespassing into yards with a metal detector to find coins, police say.
His find? Three old pennies, two quarters, four dimes and an old coin.

Donald Krenitsky III, 22, was found by with trowel and metal detector in hand at a Station Avenue residence when officers were dispatched to the location on April 27, according to the criminal complaint.
Krenitsky, digging for coins in the yard, was informed by officers that he was trespassing and stealing. He denied having identification, telling officers his name was John Kreilar, according to court records.
Officers found no record of that name, informing Krenitsky that he was under investigation and that they believed he had lied about his identity. He provided them another false name before officers asked him to drop his trowel and metal detector for a pat down, court records say.
Officers discovered Krenitsky’s wallet with his actual identity. The tenants and landlord of the residence told police that he was trespassing on the property. He allegedly had stolen three old pennies, two quarters, four dimes and an old coin, police say.

Got arrested today.

Well, I didnt but Don/Ninja did.

We were scanning a credit union front lot about 8:30 this morning when a cruiser pulled up. Lights and siren go off and next thing he is on the hood of the squad car and Im about 20 yards from him wondering what the heck!
Don is stripped of his tector, Lesche and utility belt being searched. Im standing there in awe and not moving a muscle, except dropping my Lesche to the ground for the officer. The cop doesnt deal with me cause I wasnt digging when he showed up.
Dude cuffs Don and I take some pics with my phone whilst this is happening.
I take Dons stuff and off he goes to whoknowswhere.

What a day!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Nugs Bunny]

You asked... I delivered now let's not ignore the topic of this thread or these arrests...--Nugs Bunny

I don't recall anyone suggesting that someone should do what is depicted in the arrests data that you furnished.

Go back to the first post on page one and start there... read it slow... you may just get it yet!

When the risk/legalities of md'ing particular spots comes up, there is often the fear of tickets, fines, etc... being tossed out there. As the reason to not go, or ask permission, etc... And sometimes I have challenged those persons to cite such an example, if they have one, for if it's a seemingly innocuous place currently being discussed.

Nugs, whenever I've challenged persons to cite examples of : arrests, confiscations, jail, fines, etc.... You will notice that I do indeed say that if any examples are forthcoming, they will no doubt be for someone sneaking around: "obvious historic sensitive monuments".

Your two citations are just that. Hence they have no bearing on run-of-the-mill parks, beaches, schools, forests, etc....

Now I have provided what was asked for it's time to change the subject or try to make me out as the bad guy for posting those examples...

But not ONE of you has much to say about the fact these guys were arrested doing exactly what you encourage... detecting without permission.

Unless we are on the knitting forum... then you ask permission... must be nice to be able to change your position from side to side depending on where you are posting.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Stop the insults..

Posted From My $50 Tablet....

 

[cudamark]

How do you figure it's a fluke? Did you miss post #58 and #59? Clearly two separate incidents that involve a seemingly innocuous place as you asked in your OP.

You asked... I delivered now let's not ignore the topic of this thread or these arrests...

Both your examples are regarding private property violations and add-on violations that had nothing to do with detecting or trespassing. I got the impression the discussion was about public or government owned sites with no clear cut rules regarding detecting one way or the other.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Both your examples are regarding private property violations and add-on violations that had nothing to do with detecting or trespassing. I got the impression the discussion was about public or government owned sites with no clear cut rules regarding detecting one way or the other.

I got the impression it was a seemingly innocuous place currently being discussed. I think it's fair to ascertain under the train of thought that has been applied in OTHER threads some folks here would detect Credit Union Property without asking permission, or that house at the end of the street.

Let me remind you of that theory... the theory of who really cares. The attitude it's ok to detect the spots nobody cares about without permission has consequences... going to jail.

Many common areas open to the public are actually privately owned, and any example I give will be discredited as a fluke or not good enough.

When the risk/legalities of md'ing particular spots comes up, there is often the fear of tickets, fines, etc... being tossed out there. As the reason to not go, or ask permission, etc... And sometimes I have challenged those persons to cite such an example, if they have one, for if it's a seemingly innocuous place currently being discussed. So for example, the silly notion that you can be "fined, confiscated", etc... for merely having a detector in your trunk, while driving a throughfair road that passes through a national park.

But sure enough, sometimes someone can in fact come up with some admittedly scary links. Like this one for instance:

Metal Detecting Laws And What You Should Know.

Filled with stories of persons getting seriously roughed up for picking up an arrowhead or bottle, etc... The implication being: "Therefore we md'rs must grovel for permission, seek clarifications, etc.. Afterall, you don't want to be arrested like those people, right ?

And when someone comes up with these scary stories to answer my challenge, I have likened it to the potential of a motorist being pulled over and roughed up, for nothing but a tail-light out. In other words: SURE! fluke extreme stories are bound to exist, IN ANY ARENA.

So I had to chuckle as I clipped this out of the newspaper a few days ago. A fellow given a ticket, for eating a hamburger while driving. It was considered "distracted driving".

Ok, let's see a show of hands now: Now that I've shown proof-positive that you can be ticketed for eating while driving: Who here is going to stop eating while driving?

 

[Sandman]

Nugs, give it a rest with your use of Bold type in trying to make a point. We know where your coming from.

 

[srcdco]

Scott, thanx for posting. Interesting story. All I can say to this, is that flukes exist. Just like my post about the guy who "got a ticket" for eating a hamburger while driving: Flukes exist. There's ALWAYS going to be stories that will circulate, about people getting "roughed up" for silly things, by over-zealous cops. But I see them as just that: "Flukes". It will not change my behavior (as if I fear that a "ticket" or "arrest" is imminent now), any-more-so than seeing the clipping about the guy ticketed for the hamburger will cause me to stop eating while I drive. Sure I'll be a little more careful to stay within the lines while I drive with my knee ..... but no, I'm not going to stop eating as I drive.

In the same way, an occasional fluke story like yours, does not equate to "imminent threat of danger of tickets for md'ing".

And now that the over-zealous cop in your story works somewhere else, I'd return to "business as normal", if I were in that area. I do not see such flukes as constituting a "new rule". To me, they're just flukes, and nothing more.

Tom, I agree with you and it didn't stop me from going to the Monroe County parks and detecting, even when others were warning me to be careful. Once he was reassigned, everything returned to "normal". I only posted the story because the original post asked for such incidents and I felt that this was what was being asked for. If I was wrong, I apologize.

Scott

 

[JrMack]

It seems to me after reading all this, we get the jest of the opinions thus far stated by both defendants!!! Personally I feel the only sites I can detect without worry are my own land and the ones I get permission for. I don't like being on my knees digging and having to look over my shoulder at the same time! Everyone should Know that you cannot md on federal land! I wouldn't even consider state land no matter what state it, is Unless I inquired locally where I wanted to hunt and then have it in writing signed by the authorizing party! thanks for reading and have a good day!!!!

 

[kayakpat]

Tom C. I am sure it is against the law to be doing anything that distracts from driving. I don't know the law but many have been arrested for multitasking while driving, One woman got arrested as she reached over for a lighter to light a cigarette and crossed the lane and hit a car.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

So people who trespass ....

Huh ? Sorry, I lost ya bro. I'm/we're not talking about "trespassing", were we ? We're talking about public land like parks, beaches, forests, etc.... Aren't we ?

.... or leave a mess behind ...

Huh ? Who's advocating "leaving a mess behind" ? Don't youknow how to leave no trace of your md'ing ? If not, repeat the "target recovery 101" class.

....If a place is off limits it was due to an archaeologist?....

No, not always. It can be via any number of various levels/types of decision-makers at bureaucratic levels. In the immediate conversation, I believe we are/were talking about "no's" that originate via "cultural heritage" (archies) levels/concerns. But no, not all off-limits rules originate with archies. They can come from a variety of reasons/persons.

....Can you cite ONE example of where asking permission has led to stronger regulations?......

Yes. I can cite many many examples. Places where no one ever had an issue before. Till someone takes it upon themselves to go ask, seek clarifications, etc... Bless their little hearts, eh ? Their "pressing question" get pushed back and forth between multiple different desks at whatever agency they've shown up at. Till someone decides "nah, we better tell this guy 'no' ". That may take the form of an actual rule (a sign appears, or code is added to the list of rules, or whatever). Or it may be a "no". Either way, you know have a "no", in a place that was never an issue before. Yes I have MANY examples of this psychology.

..... Because I can cite several where careless digging and failure to ask permission has been a problem....

Well, "careless digging", sure. But we ALL already agree on that (that we should fill our holes, be neat, etc...). So I fail to realize the point of your bringing that up.

As for failing to ask for permission being the reason for rules against us, think about the self-contradiction in that statement. Here it is spelled out for you: a) if someone "took offence" that he saw someone metal detecting at a place of public land, ask yourself WHY is he "taking offence" at that ? There has to be some way, or somehow, that this person considers it a) against currently existing law that is being violated, or b) something he morphs that he believes applies (altering, defacing, removing, cultural heritage, etc...). Ok, are you with me so far ? Therefore, in theory, if you had gone in to ask that fellow ahead of time "Hi, can I metal detect?": Then knowing what we have as a starting premise (that this person considers it against current law), then guess what his answer is going to be ? So .... really then, there is no "new law" introduced , that wasn't already there, to have caused this person to take offence, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And I remind you again, that the whole question you're asking is stacked in the first place. Because the mere question of asking "what harm can it cause to ask permission" merely implies to the listener that we're talking about a place that permission IS NEEDED, in the FIRST PLACE. If that starting implied premise is true, then by all means, ask away !

....not posts where people have asked permission to hunt property where it's required.

Ah, I think you're getting it. Then what this is boiling down to then, is a question of where it's "required" that we ask permission. NOT a question of "is permission asking a good thing?". Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

How do you figure it's a fluke? .... You asked... I delivered now let's not ignore ....

Wait, did you cite an example of an innocuous public location ? Seems to me that #58 and #59 had to do with private property ? Eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom C. I am sure it is against the law to be doing anything that distracts from driving. I don't know the law but many have been arrested for multitasking while driving, One woman got arrested as she reached over for a lighter to light a cigarette and crossed the lane and hit a car.

kayakpat, I don't disagree. I suppose the fellow who got the "ticket for eating the hamburger", might have weaved a bit, crossed a center line, or something. I think the title of such a ticket is "distracted driving". (not "eating a hamburger", haha). Thus to draw out the anology of the truth of what you're saying;

If drivers read that clip, they do NOT infer "therefore eating while driving is illegal". Instead they infer: "be more careful when eating, so that I don't get a ticket". Therefore in the same way, when an md'r reads a story of someone "ticketed for md'ing", they need not be so quick to assume "therefore detecting is illegal" (anymore so than the driver concludes "eating hamburgers is illegal").

By way of example: When ALL of us see a cop while driving, what do we instinctively immediately do ? We check our speedometer, right ? Or if you're eating a burger, you take extra precaution (or wait till he's gone) to resume eating the burger, right ?

Then why can't the same logic pertain to md'ing ? If I'm hunting a turfed park, and perceive a lookie-lou griper is watching, I will not be "in the middle of a deep retrieval" when being scrutinized like that (same as driving and cops in the lane next to you). As opposed to the lesson here being : "I need to have various authority's blessings".

BTW, what do you think would happen, if you asked the particular cop in the burger ticket story: "Hi, is it ok to eat a burger while driving?". What do you think his answer would be ?

 

[cudamark]

I got the impression it was a seemingly innocuous place currently being discussed. I think it's fair to ascertain under the train of thought that has been applied in OTHER threads some folks here would detect Credit Union Property without asking permission, or that house at the end of the street.

I think 99% of us are quite aware that private property needs permission granted prior to detecting. "Public" property in all it's various forms will depend on whether there are any written or posted rules governing that plot of land. If there isn't anything specific about detecting then it's a matter of opinion if we fall under some other rule morphed to include our activity. I contend that you are not going to be arrested for detecting and recovering targets when there is no specific rule that says you can't. This also presumes that you are not going to be an a$$ when told to leave causing an escalation of events resulting in more serious police action. As for asking permission, I look at it this way. It's extremely unlikely you are going to change their mind by asking. If they have no problem you you detecting, you'll get a YES if you ask, and a YES if you're seen doing it without asking first. If you ask and get a NO, you're going to get a NO when seen doing it. You really think that someone is happy to say yes to detecting if you ask but is going to deny you if you don't ask? I guess it's possible to a control freak but it doesn't sound logical to me. Most people have their mind made up one way or the other and whether you ask or not isn't going to change that. I also don't think it has much of an effect to our "image" one way of the other either. Your attitude, appearance, and care in recoveries will make more of an impression than asking permission or not. I don't think too many people would go home to their spouse and complain about a detectorist they met that day and try to spread the word as to how bad a person/hobby we are....i mean really.....you think they go out of their way to bad mouth us? Even if they tell their spouse, where does it go from there? The bridge club? Their golfing buddies? A meeting with the mayor?

Let me remind you of that theory... the theory of who really cares. The attitude it's ok to detect the spots nobody cares about without permission has consequences... going to jail.

On private property trespass...maybe.....public access and no other issues........show me one.

Many common areas open to the public are actually privately owned, and any example I give will be discredited as a fluke or not good enough.

They're still not going to have you arrested when a simple scram will get the job done. Now if you tell them to buzz off and continue detecting.....you're on your own!

 

[cudamark]

Sorry about the editing in that last post. You'll have to read between the lines to see my comments on Nug's statements.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Wait, did you cite an example of an innocuous public location ? Seems to me that #58 and #59 had to do with private property ? Eh ?

They no different than HUD owned single residences, Post Offices or some parks. Those are private property although it has been debated they are legal to detect.

The two biggest and nicest parks in town are full of history... and also privately owned. They are considered public parks, surely those would be an example of an innocuous public location. If one applies the "who really cares" theory and just went detecting those parks without checking first they would be taking a involuntary ride along with local law enforcement.

After all the debating on detecting these other places you can hardly expect me to believe the three amigos would have a problem with detecting Federal Credit Union property.

Well, if you ask me, if that were the only price I'd have to pay once in a blue moon, I'd say .... fine. That's just the price I'd pay. I'm about as brazen as they come. And in 35 yrs. I've never had a "ticket" for metal detecting. I've had many "scrams" and such, but ...... so far, never a ticket. If the day came where I got one like that, I'd just pay it and ... oh well.

I knew a guy who got ticketed for hunting at a historic army base (an admittedly sensitive monument federal area). And at first, he was torqued (no one likes getting a ticket afterall). But after getting the ticket in the mail, and seeing it was something like $175 ...... he just paid it as no-big-deal.

I'm not saying to "throw caution to the wind", but just saying, that an occasional fluke thing like that ....... if it's going to cause you to cower and grovel at every city hall and ranger kiosk you come to .... then I think we need to develop a little thicker skin than that.

Also I know several others who fought their tickets and got them dismissed. But that's for a different thread, haha

Bottom line is: You can ALWAYS find examples of over-zeolous cops passing out tickets and roughing up motorists for nothing but a tail-light out. But sheesk, will that stop you from driving? No. We look at those things as "exceptions". Not "norms".

NEVER EVER hunt military installations without first getting permission from the base commander! I have permission to hunt the base park at Randolph AFB, but I had to run it through channels first. I sent an email to the base Public Affairs Office and asked how I go about getting permission. The PA officer put me in touch with the two units on base that I needed to get permission from ... The base Security Police (so they know what I am doing ahead of time), and the base Grounds Maintenance Office (digging permission). Both offices replied back via email that they had no issues with me doing metal detecting in the park. I saved both emails and have them in a binder, in which I keep my other municipal permission slips, and keep the binder in my vehicle at all times. In her email to the SP and GM units the PA officer said she was surprised and very pleased that someone actually asked permission ahead of time. I'm convinced that this is what got me permission to hunt on an otherwise off-limits, historic military installation. So, keep in mind, never hunt without written permission. A little courtesy can go a long way!

Why can't a person look up the base rules for themself on that base? If there were nothing prohibiting metal detecting, then does it "need permission" to begin with ?

Like how about frisbee flying. Afterall you might poke someone's eye out. So do you need the base commander's permission for that? You'd probably say "no". Because you think frisbee flying is innocuous, harmless, etc.... right? Ok then: why the inherent premise that detecting is somehow harmful, dangerous, etc...? Since when ?

I have no doubt you "got the base commander's permission" wherever you're at. And in your mind's eye, maybe you think that "therefore, permission-asking was necessary". Because maybe you think "how ELSE could he have said yes, or no, unless his permission was necessary?". But human nature doesn't work that way. The fact of a "yes" or a "no" doesn't mean "gee it's a good thing I asked".

Like: did you expect him or any authority to say "gee, that's a silly question. Why are you asking me? You don't need my permission" No, of course they won't answer that way. Instead, they'll bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no". Afterall, you asked. Thus implying their sanction was necessary (lest why else would you be asking, if it didn't need their say-so ?")

Good question supersonic. Because anytime questions of detecting public land comes up (even innocuous places with no rules prohibiting!), a few are sure to post fears we're supposed to leery of: "Getting arrested" "tickets" "confiscations" "jail", and so forth. Yet when you press those people of examples of such things, few are ever forthcoming. And if any examples ever ARE given, they are invariably someone night-sneaking an obvious historic monument, or someone who couldn't take a warning, etc...

I'm as BRAZEN as they come, and have been so for 35+ yrs. of this. And I have never faced anything more than scrams.

But with that said, I do personally know of 2 people who got tickets: One was for state historic park property, AND HE WASN'T EVEN DETECTING. He had been detecting a private ag/furroughed field, adjacent to that park. And then when done, he took a short-cut across a portion of the state park (just a dirt/grass over-flow parking area for RV's), on this way back to the public street. Detector off, just walking to his car. A ranger saw him and gave him a ticket. He could have fought it (since he was only going from point a to point b), but when he saw that the ticket was only a measily $100 or so, he just paid it. Wasn't even worth taking time off work, and he actually got a laugh out of it.

The only other time was a friend at a federal military base. It was admittedly historic-in-nature. The two buddies each got tickets. And of such a insignificant amount, that it was more of a nuisance than anything. Something on the order of $150 each. The lady MP that got them, waited till they were getting back to their car to leave, and told them she'd been watching them for over an hour. Which sort of irked my friends because .... in their mind ..... it was like ....... "if this is so friggin' wrong, why didn't you come over here and talk to us, or give us the ticket, an hour ago??". I suppose they too could have fought it, as there was no posting to the effect, and I suppose they might have argued they didn't have anything over 50 yr. old, or were looking for their boyscout ring, etc.. But when they saw the amounts of the ticket, it was just easier to pay and not fool with it.

But barring that 2nd incident (which admittedly they could have "figured"), and not counting the first incident (which my friend was not even detecting, and could have successfully appealed), I have not personally heard of anything.

I'm sure there *might* be a rogue incident someone could find, of someone getting jailed for hunting city sand-box somewhere. I mean, so too can someone probably come up with an incident of an over-zealous cop roughing up a motorist for nothing but a tail-light out.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Nugs, give it a rest with your use of Bold type in trying to make a point. We know where your coming from.

My use of bold type is not to make a point. I use bold type to make it easier to see. If my response is a single sentence or I happened to quote several statements then I typically will use bold type.

 

[kayakpat]

Trespass

An unlawful intrusion that interferes with one's person or property.

Tort Law originated in England with the action of trespass. Initially trespass was any wrongful conduct directly causing injury or loss; in modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land. A trespass gives the aggrieved party the right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect damages as compensation for the interference and for any harm suffered. Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can be punished as a crime.
Common-Law Form of Action

Trespass is one of the ancient Forms of Action that arose under the Common Law of England as early as the thirteenth century. It was considered a breach of the king's peace for which the wrongdoer might be summoned before the king's court to respond in a civil proceeding for the harm caused. Because the king's courts were primarily interested in land ownership disputes, the more personal action of trespass developed slowly at first.

Around the middle of the fourteenth century, the clerks of the king's courts began routinely giving out writs that permitted a plaintiff to begin a trespass action. Before that time criminal remedies for trespass were more common. The courts were primarily concerned with punishing the trespasser rather than compensating the landowner. From the beginning a defendant convicted of trespass was fined; a defendant who could not pay the fine was imprisoned. The fine in this criminal proceeding developed into an award of damages to the plaintiff. This change marked the beginning of tort action under the common law.

As trespass developed into a means of compelling the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for injury to his property interests, it took two forms: an action for trespass on real property and an action for injury to Personal Property.

In an action for trespass on land, the plaintiff could recover damages for the defendant's forcible interference with the plaintiff's possession of his land. Even the slightest entry onto the land without the plaintiff's permission gave the plaintiff the right to damages in a nominal sum.

An action for trespass to chattels was available to seek damages from anyone who had intentionally or forcibly injured personal property. The injury could include carrying off the plaintiff's property or harming it, destroying it, or keeping the plaintiff from holding or using it as she had a right to do.

Later, an additional Cause of Action was recognized for injuries that were not forcible or direct. This action was called trespass on the case or action on the case because its purpose was to protect the plaintiff's legal rights, rather than her person or land, from intentional force.

Over the years the courts recognized other forms of actions that permitted recovery for injuries that did not exactly fit the forms of trespass or trespass on the case. Eventually, writs were also issued for these various types of actions. For example, a continuing trespass was a permanent invasion of someone's rights, as when a building overhung a neighbor's land. A trespass for mesne profits was a form of action against a tenant who wrongfully took profits, such as a crop, from the property while he occupied it. A trespass to try title was a form of action to recover possession of real property from someone who was not entitled to it. This action "tried title" so that the court could order possession for the person who turned out to be the rightful owner.

These common-law forms of action had serious shortcomings. A plaintiff who could not fit her complaint exactly into one of the forms could not proceed in court, even if she obviously had been wronged. Modern law has remedied this situation by enacting rules of Civil Procedure that replace the common-law forms with more flexible ways of wording a civil complaint. The various trespass actions are still important, however, because modern property laws are largely based on them. The rights protected remain in force, and frequently even the old names are still used.
Trespass to Land

In modern law the word trespass is used most commonly to describe the intentional and wrongful invasion of another's real property. An action for trespass can be maintained by the owner or anyone else who has a lawful right to occupy the real property, such as the owner of an apartment building, a tenant, or a member of the tenant's family. The action can be maintained against anyone who interferes with the right of ownership or possession, whether the invasion is by a person or by something that a person has set in motion. For example, a hunter who enters fields where hunting is forbidden is a trespasser, and so is a company that throws rocks onto neighboring land when it is blasting.

Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property. A person who has a right to come onto the land may become a trespasser by committing wrongful acts after entry. For example, a mail carrier has a privilege to walk up the sidewalk at a private home but is not entitled to go through the front door. A person who enters property with permission but stays after he has been told to leave also commits a trespass. Moreover, an intruder cannot defend himself in a trespass action by showing that the plaintiff did not have a completely valid legal right to the property. The reason for all of these rules is that the action of trespass exists to prevent breaches of the peace by protecting the quiet possession of real property.

In a trespass action, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to trespass but only that she intended to do whatever caused the trespass. It is no excuse that the trespasser mistakenly believed that she was not doing wrong or that she did not understand the wrong. A child can be a trespasser, as can a person who thought that she was on her own land.

Injury to the property is not necessary for the defendant to be guilty of trespass, although the amount of damages awarded will generally reflect the extent of the harm done to the property. For example, a person could sue birdwatchers who intruded onto his land but would probably receive only nominal damages. A farmer who discovers several persons cutting down valuable hardwood trees for firewood could recover a more substantial amount in damages.

Trespassers are responsible for nearly all the consequences of their unlawful entry, including those that could not have been anticipated or are the result of nothing more wrongful than the trespass itself. For example, if a trespasser carefully lights a fire in the stove of a lake cabin and a fault in the stove causes the cabin to burn down, the trespasser can be held liable for the fire damage.

Courts have had to consider how far above and below the ground the right to possession of land extends. In United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court held the federal government liable for harm caused to a poultry business by low-altitude military flights. The Court concluded that because the airspace above land is like a public highway, ordinary airplane flights cannot commit trespass. In this case, however, the planes were flying below levels approved by federal law and regulations, so the government was held responsible. Its activity was a "taking" of private property, for which the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires just compensation.

It may be a trespass to tunnel or mine under another person's property, to force water or soil under the property, or to build a foundation that crosses under the boundary line. Underground encroachments are usually an exception to the rule that no harm needs to be shown in order to prove a trespass. Generally, trespass actions are permitted only where there is some damage to the surface or some interference with the owner's rights to use her property.
Trespass by One Entitled to Possession

In nearly all states, a person who forcibly enters onto land is guilty of a crime, even if that person is entitled to possession of the land. For example, a landlord who personally tries to eject a tenant creates a potentially explosive situation. To discourage such "self help," the states provide legal procedures for the rightful owner to use to recover his land. Many states do not let the illegal occupant sue the rightful owner in trespass for his forcible entry, but the occupant can sue for Assault and Battery or damage to her personal property.
Continuing Trespass

A trespass is continuing when the offending object remains on the property of the person entitled to possession. A building or fence that encroaches on a neighbor's property creates a continuing trespass, as does a tree that has fallen across a boundary line. Some courts have allowed a series of lawsuits where there is a continuing trespass, but the prevailing view is that the dispute should be settled in its entirety in one action.

The remedies can be tailored to the particular kind of harm done. A defendant might have to pay damages to repair the plaintiff's property or compensate the plaintiff for the diminished value of her property. Where a structure or object is on the plaintiff's property, the defendant may be ordered to remove it.
Defenses

In some cases a defendant is not liable for trespass even though she has intruded onto another's property. Public officials, for example, do not have any special right to trespass, but a housing inspector with a Search Warrant can enter someone's building whether the owner consents or not. A police officer can pursue a criminal across private property without liability for trespass. The police officer's defense to a claim of trespass is her lawful authority to enter.

A hotel employee who enters a guest's room to perform housekeeping services is not a trespasser because it is customary to assume that guests want such services. If charged with trespass by the guest, the hotel would claim the guest consented to the employee's entry.

A landlord does not have the right to enter a tenant's apartment whenever the landlord wants. However, the landlord usually has the right to enter to make repairs. The landlord must arrange a reasonable time for the repairs, but the tenant's consent to this arrangement is either contained in the lease or is implied from the landlord's assumption of responsibility for making repairs inside the apartment.

A person is not guilty of trespass if he goes onto another's land to protect life or property during an emergency. For example, a passerby who sees someone pointing a gun at another person may cross onto the property and subdue the person with the gun. Someone at the scene of a traffic accident may go onto private property to pull a victim from one of the vehicles.

Permission to enter someone else's property can be given either by consent or by license. Consent simply means giving permission or allowing another onto the land. For example, a person who lets neighborhood children play in her yard has given consent. Consent may be implied from all the circumstances. A homeowner who calls a house painter and asks for an estimate cannot later complain that the painter trespassed by coming into her yard.

Sometimes consent to enter another's land is called a license, or legal permission. This license is not necessarily a certificate and may be in the form of a written agreement. For example, an electric company might have a license to enter private property to maintain electrical lines or to read the electric meter. The employees cannot act unreasonably when they make repairs, and they and the company are liable for any damage they cause to the property.
Duty to Trespassers

A homeowner is limited in what he can do to protect his family and property from trespassers. The homeowner cannot shoot children who keep cutting across the lawn or set traps or deadly spring-operated guns to kill anyone who trespasses on the property. Deadly Force in any manner is generally not justifiable except in Self-Defense while preventing a violent felony. Mere trespass is not a felony.

The owner or person in possession of real property can be held liable if guests are injured on the property because of the owner's Negligence. A property owner generally does not have the same duty to make the premises safe for a trespasser, however. A trespasser assumes the risk of being injured by an unguarded excavation, a fence accidentally electrified by a falling wire, or a broken stair. The occupant of real property has a duty only to refrain from intentionally injuring a trespasser on the premises.

These general rules have several exceptions, however. A property owner who knows that people frequently trespass at a particular place on his land must act affirmatively to keep them out or exercise care to prevent their injury. If the trespasser is a child, most states require an occupant of land to be more careful because a child cannot always be expected to understand and appreciate dangers. Therefore, if the property owner has a swimming pool, the law would classify this as an attractive nuisance that could be expected to cause harm to a child. The property owner must take reasonable precautions to prevent a trespassing child from harm. In this case the erection of a fence around the swimming pool would likely shield the property owner from liability if a child trespassed and drowned in the pool.
Criminal Trespass

At common law a trespass was not criminal unless it was accomplished by violence or breached the peace. Some modern statutes make any unlawful entry onto another's property a crime. When the trespass involves violence or injury to a person or property, it is always considered criminal, and penalties may be increased for more serious or malicious acts. Criminal intent may have to be proved to convict under some statutes, but in some states trespass is a criminal offense regardless of the defendant's intent.

Some statutes consider a trespass criminal only if the defendant has an unlawful purpose in entering or remaining in the place where he has no right to be. The unlawful purpose may be an attempt to disrupt a government office, theft, or Arson. Statutes in some states specify that a trespass is not criminal until after a warning, either spoken or by posted signs, has been given to the trespasser. Criminal trespass is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
Further readings

Epstein, Richard A. 2003. "Cybertrespass." University of Chicago Law Review 70 (winter).

Saba, John D., Jr. 2002. "Internet Property Rights: E-trespass." St. Mary's Law Journal 33 (winter).

Schoenberg, Tom. 2003. "Supreme Court Examines Trespassing Policy." Legal Times (May 1).

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Here is just one example of what can be considered trespassing. If anyone thinks it is as simple as a two word sign telling you what is considered trespassing you might want to research further. I am not suggesting anyone disobey any such sign ,but there is more to it than a simple definition. ---

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.

This is in reference to a school property that is considered to be a private property. This does not mean all school properties are considered private or would have the same definition. Each district might have their own policy on what they allow and what they consider to be trespassing.

First off that's not in reference to school property... it's in reference to ALL private property.

Secondly... that is the Statute for South Carolina, you better read what the Missouri trespass laws are!

Third... in the "Permission" thread you claim the code I provided 16-11-530 had nothing to do with trespass, now you are claiming 16-11-600 is in reference to school property!
Please show where it mentions school property in 16-11-600

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.

So now you are contradicting yourself... the reason you are claiming 16-11-600 is in reference to school property is because it cites 16-11-600 in 16-11-530.

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.

You can't have it both ways... in the permission thread you argued the exact opposite...

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.

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.

You sure dodged that post in the permission thread though didn't ya? Then you flip flop in this thread and go to the other extreme.

 

[kayakpat]

a quick search with "tresspass on public property" brought all kind of arrests for trespass on schools property, and state by state laws on public property


'

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Some might say school property is not public property.

You mean besides the law?

Posted From My $50 Tablet....