Charged with Vandalism and Looking for Guidance

[jrmazzeo]

I am in the middle of a terrible metal detecting experience that I wanted to share and get some feedback on.

I was recently detecting on the common of the town I live in, something I and others have done many times before and which is not prohibited by the town bylaws. While retrieving a target I was approached by a police office who yelled "Hey a**hole, what the hell do you think you are doing?" I explained to him that I was metal detecting the common and reiterated that it was not illegal to do so. He asked for my license and called it into the station and then told me to leave and that I was forbidden to be on the common and that I should expect a summons in the mail.

Two weeks later I received said summons and was charged with vandalism, which is a felony in my state. I immediately hired a lawyer and waited for the arraignment, which occurred last week. The police report cited damage to the grass and potentially the sprinklers, with the evidence being photos the officer took after I left showing what a typical, neat filled in hole looks like.

I have subsequently taken photos of the area I was digging showing that no damage was done.

Has anyone else experienced this before? Any ideas on how to fight this charge?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[KirkS]

Holy ! That's crazy!

I have no suggestions, other then getting an attorney, which you have already done. Keep us posted.

 

[geodesic9]

We have a local park that allows metal detecting, we are on the Motherlode, but it requires submitting a request form and only to be done before 9 am. I see people in there at various times of the day and I make a point to stop and educate them. If we don't do it right we lose the right.
Have you had your attorney pull the county by-laws that state it is ok to detect in the commons? Should be open and shut with that document in hand.

 

[Oddjob]

You already hired an attorney, not much more you can do really, you could have the attorney file a complaint for unprofessional conduct since he or she is already on the clock.

Likely nothing will come of this at all, but you could file a law suit to have your fees paid.

 

[digger460]

I can see the judge now, rolling his eye's. Hope it turn's out positive for you!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... and was charged with vandalism, ....

Jrmazzeo, all such verbiage (alter, deface, vandalize, etc....) INHERENTLY refer to the end result. So if you leave no trace of your presence, then technically you haven't alterED, defacED, or vandalizED anything. Now have you ? As you say yourself:

...I have subsequently taken photos of the area I was digging showing that no damage was done....

So While I know this is no fun, let me give you an example of the exact same thing that happened near me:

In San Francisco, CA city parks (where, like your case, has no specific prohibition for detectors, and the parks have been detected since the 1960s). A guy got hassled by a cop, who gave him a ticket, same as yours. The md'r decided to fight it (but just on his own, no lawyer). The day came, and he was in a cattle-call line up of people answering their charges. When it came his turn, he had his lines scripted to rehearse: "Your honor, I don't know what this is all about. I was just metal detecting for loose change. I was doing no harm, leaving no marks or damage to anything. And the next thing I know, I was getting roughed up by this fellow who wouldn't let me explain how it works, and .......".

As he's going through his script, the judge is studying the paper work. Before the md'r can even finish his lines, the judge bangs the gavel and says "dismissed". And on to the next person. Entire process took less than 60 seconds. Word spread amongst mdr's about this, and we joked that he wanted xerox of the "dismissed" paperwork to carry with us when doing SF parks. But no such incidents ever happened again. Probably just a fluke. Or some cop responding to a call out from a busy-body lookie-lou neighbor.

I realize you said yours was "felony". Perhaps the one I speak of was something more petty, like traffic court ? But in any case, the facts remain: For there to be "vandalism", there has to be something vandalizED. It's implicit in the definitions. If he has some photos appearing to show the opposite (showing damage), then .... were you done stomping and fluffing them ? Or did he take a pix before you had finished with whatever recovery you were on ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And to anyone (newbies) reading this sad post, don't be quick to think that going in and asking ahead of time "can I metal detect?" necessarily solves this. For 2 reasons:

a) many instances exist of persons fetching a "no", when, ... oddly ... it had never been a problem or issue. Hence they were simply victims of the psychology of "no one cared TILL you asked a 'pressing question' "

b) Humorous stories exist where someone gets a "yes". Only to be accosted in the field by a cop or gardener. The md'r proudly whips out his "permission". Only to have it quickly revoked . And in one case a guy was seriously reprimanded for "having gotten permission under false pretenses and mincing words" . For failing to have mentioned "holes" and "dig", etc.... He was threatened with a ticket anyhow for this "dishonesty" and "misleading city hall desk clerks" blah blah. In that case, the poor fellow mused that the NEXT city he comes to, he's going to *be sure* to mention "holes" and "dig". Several of us chided him telling him to just say "metal detect". Since words like "dig" and "holes" are sure-fire permission killers (as if permission was even needed). It was THEN that he explained his reasons for thinking he needed to use such words. Doh!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Have you had your attorney pull the county by-laws that state it is ok to detect in the commons?.....

This is a dead-end street. Because the ticket here was for "vandalism". Not "metal detecting". So the fact that the OP or his lawyer could show that there was no prohibition of metal detectors (hence not dis-allowed), will be a moot point here. He could theoretically swing all he wants. And pick up coin off the top of the ground. But the issue here is not "metal detecting". It's : Did his act of retrieving/digging constitute: "vandalism" or not.

 

[Deft Tones]

I'd be more concerned with an Officer of the Law addressing a taxpayer starting with, "Hey, A-hole..."

Have your council make his life miserable. Hit him in the wallet and make him cry.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'd be more concerned with an Officer of the Law addressing a taxpayer starting with, "Hey, A-hole..."....

Excellent point. Even though this name-calling has nothing to do with the merits of "whether or not jrmazzeo vandalized anything", yet it's still a good point: Because un-professional conduct like this, will most definitely paint a bias and over-zealousness on the part of that officer.

I had a situation where a MP (at a military base) waved a gun at me. Later, I went to complain to his superiors about this treatment. When his superiors heard this (un-professionality of over-reaction) , my actions (metal detecting) became a moot point. His superiors were embarassed at their officer's actions. It started a ball rolling where this officer's file folders were opened, and various other such "gun-waving incidents" were found written up. The end result was: That officer was relegated to a desk job. And could never carry a gun or do regular police duties again thereafter.

So you're right : To bring out this point can allow the judge to see a little bit of over-zealousness on the part of that cop. I suppose the cop could simply deny it. That's what happened in my case. But when his folder was opened up, and more-such-incidents were found, it became over-whelming that he was just a power-monger.

Of course "gun-waving" and "foul language" are world's apart, yet the principle will still hold here, IMHO.

 

[Denny45]

It was probably not illegal to detect as long as you do not dig into the ground. You can only detect the surface without damaging the grass. If the officer sent you a summons there most likely was a law. Also officer must be having a bad day if he called you a as**ole. Isn't there a law against that. Hope you can clear this up.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... If the officer sent you a summons there most likely was a law.... .

To whatever extent this is true, then it is true of every single park across the entire USA. I mean, can you think of any park where "vandalism" is "allowed" ? Of course not. So the issue here is: Does this action constitute "vandalism" or not.

And if a person leaves no trace, then they didn't "vandalize" anything. If someone still disagrees with those semantics, then a WARNING (ie.: "being appraised") comes first (because it's admittedly within the decision making powers of a cop or duly-appointed official to decide). So AT A MINIMUM the O.P. should be able to argue that , if the refuse to budge on the definition, then ANY GOOD JUDGE would realize that, in the case of a grey area semantics like this: That he is entitled to a warning.

The mere fact that md'ing goes on all over the USA without issue SHOWS that it does not "automatically constitute vandalism". And in fact: The mere fact that it's gone on there for a long while amongst hobbyists in his area (which he should point out) ALSO represents a precedent that a "reasonable man" would interpret to mean "it's ok".

No different than if you stumbled on to a group of men each Saturday with radio controlled toy boats on the park reflecting pond, that a "reasonable person" would deduce it must be ok (it would never cross your mind that it's not ok, or "might constitute a nuisance", etc.... ). Same for md'ing: If it's merely been routine, then why oh why would someone all of the sudden be expected to know that a cussing cop now considers this "vandalism" ? Without at least a warning ?

This is a slam dunk innocent case. Print all these answers out to show your attorney . And personally, I don't even think you need an attorney (unless I'm mis-understanding the categorization of this falling under "felony" ? That's just crazy)

 

[b3y0nd3r]

VANDALISM:

Willful or malicious damage or destruction of the property of another.

Did you purposely try to damage something? The answer is NO.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

"Well, your Honor, I believe the situation is that while I as aerating the lawn and removing foreign contaminates I was verbally assaulted by Officer Buttcramp."

"Vandalism would be willful destruction but I carefully replaced the flap of sod - I always cut flaps so a portion of the root system is connected to the surface - and I left the spot just as I had found it with the exception of having removed a coin or bottle cap."

 

[Kansas_Jayhawk]

Wonder how hard it would be to find out if this officer has been a good cop or one with a laundry list of complaints.

I for one have yet to figure out why some have such heartburn when they see someone with a metal detector.

Best of luck. Hope you have an attorney who'll call the officer to the stand and make him wish he would not have written you up. Glad that the LEOs I've run across have been level headed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cudamark]

Just another point to add to your lawyers argument......The simple act of recovering a target shouldn't be considered vandalism because the groundskeepers do the same type thing every day. (and show them photos of the grounds crew doing various "gardening" tasks. Mowing and aerating are done periodically and don't hurt the grass/sod, in fact, they're beneficial to their health and appearance. Have a licensed agro guy there to attest to that fact.

 

[GibH]

I'm not a lawyer, never played one on tv, and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in years. One thing that sticks out in the original post is the charge. If it were indeed a felony, then the officer would have had to arrest, no? That would include being Mirandized. Now if it is a civil citation, obviously different rules apply.

 

[diggummup]

I'm not a lawyer, never played one on tv, and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in years. One thing that sticks out in the original post is the charge. If it were indeed a felony, then the officer would have had to arrest, no? That would include being Mirandized. Now if it is a civil citation, obviously different rules apply.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[GibH]

I'm not a lawyer, never played one on tv, and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in years. One thing that sticks out in the original post is the charge. If it were indeed a felony, then the officer would have had to arrest, no? That would include being Mirandized. Now if it is a civil citation, obviously different rules apply.

Never mind, I found the answer I was looking for. Police can file a criminal complaint, then the court issues a summons. This only on charges where they aren't allowed to make an arrest for. A felony charge they would definitely be able to arrest though. I think the OP probably did the right thing by hiring an attorney. Hopefully it is one who knows his stuff, not like most of the ambulance chasers here who are only after quick bucks on cases they settle with an insurance company.

 

[tlane38003]

Scary stuff I was called into shore a few weeks back the officer was really nice said someone called saw me in the water thought I was in distress asked for id then checked out my vibraprobe he thought it was a tazer then told me to enjoy the rest of the day in ct detecting is allowed but no digging accept beaches and swimming eareas

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk