Abandoned House? OK To Metal Detect?

[Tom_in_CA]

.... asking them about who owns the trail ? Seriously ?....

I bet that that the average person, who lives in a place where a "trail" laces through the countryside near their house, probably merely assumes "public". Simply because that's where everyone has always/ever walked. Like a short-cut trail that crosses a vacant corner lot, etc.... Nobody blinks twice at walking their dog, and following trails, that have always ever been used in their neighborhood.

So it just struck me that if the OP is walking right past the house, and trail skirts right up next to it, well : Could he detect the immediate environs of the trail (in-so-far as the section immediate to the house). But .... sure , to step any further off the trail in the direction of closer-to-the-house, then he would need to go to the assessor to find the exact invisible line in the ground where "private" starts. He might be surprised to find out the trail itself crosses through private land. Yet had never been a big deal. Then, of course, he will stop walking the trail from then-on-out.

 

[jeff of pa]

I'm pretty Confident here, right of way for trails does not mean the Land owner gives up ground.
it Just means Travelers have the right to trespass to get from one side to the other.
Everything on the Ground belongs to the Land owner.
(Litter & old accidental drops you need a lawyer) fresh accidental drops
of course belong to the accidental Dropper.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'm pretty Confident here, right of way for trails does not mean the Land owner gives up ground.
it Just means Travelers have the right to trespass to get from one side to the other.
.....

Correct. I realize that. My notion would merely bring up the issue of "what is allowable" within said status. Personally, I find the act of md'ing to be any different than something else no one would blink at doing along that trail: bird-watching, walking their dog, etc.... But ... that's just me

I guess I'm just more thinking along the lines of: If it's a trail that anyone can walk on (public or private), then odds are (especially seeing as how the house is "abandoned"), that no one's there to split hairs on one action vs another.

 

[Mackaydon]

Check with the county offices as to who pays the property taxes; contact that person for permission.
Signs of 'No Trespassing' need not be posted for you to still be stopped by the authorities.
And you digging holes on private property without permission may raise the risk of you being 'hauled in' for malicious mischief or destruction of private property or ??
Be safe (and legal).
Don.......

 

[Mackaydon]

But if you persist on doing it without permission and get caught, tell the authorities some guy on Treasurenet.com said it was OK; and see how far that recommendation will get you.
Don.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...you digging holes on private property without permission may raise the risk of you being 'hauled in' for malicious mischief or destruction of private property or ?? ....

Yes. Which is why he would fill the holes and leave no trace, so that he has not "destructED" anything. All that you're saying is equally true of public property (like parks) as well. Someone could try to say that the mere act of us detecting "alters" or "defaces" something .

I realize this doesn't address the bigger issue (that , yes, technically he needs to head to the assessor's office before walking or detecting there). But just saying, the "risk of going to jail" because it would be called "destruction" is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Oddjob]

But just saying, the "risk of going to jail" because it would be called "destruction" is a bit of a stretch.

That would depend if the owner wants to press charges or not; many owners who own property they seldom ever visit give police departments permission to Trespass any trespassers.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It is abandoned property, or there would be people caring for the lawns. Just do not break in the house. The owner is nowhere to be find on the property. Cover your holes. Good hunting and good luck.

It is not abandoned property, it is own by somebody. If home owners are no longer involved then it is owned by the bank/mortgage company and digging there is still trespassing on private property. there is house across the street that owner fell behind in payments then died, no one in family could afford to take over the property so it went into foreclosure, people were going into the house, using the pool and so I called the police, when they came to investigate they came to my home to talk to me since I gave my name and address and I was told by the police it is trespassing to enter the property period, it didn't matter if they went in the house, pool or just the yard it was all still trespassing by law and for me to call if I saw people on the property other than sidewalk.

There is no unowned land in America, it is all owned by someone a company, bank, mortgage company, private business or government entity, city, county, state or federal, it is all owned by something.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That would depend if the owner wants to press charges or not; many owners who own property they seldom ever visit give police departments permission to Trespass any trespassers.

Yes. And assuming this trail (that skirts right by the abandoned house) is private, then it appears that the owner hasn't appeared to "want to press charges" so far. Eh ? Otherwise no one would be walking there. Yes I realize this doesn't address the notion of "what if he/they consider the act of swinging a detector to be something atrocious ?".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... l if I saw people on the property other than sidewalk.

In a case like that, (the mental picture that story portrays) I totally agree.

But how about a commonly forever-used trail that laces through a vacant field , or at the edge of a neighborhood or woods type thing ? Ok to walk the trail ? Or ? I believe that there's legal precedent that access through historically used routes (I forget the legal term used) is ok. But yes, this doesn't address what's allowable beyond that . Because, sure, the act of md'ing isn't the same as walking (although I happen to think it's pretty innocuous )

A story about this in next post:

 

[Tom_in_CA]

A story I read in the newspaper about trails that lace along upper Carmel River/creek, near Monterey, CA:

An equestrian ranch horse place did horse boarding and trail rides for the public. The trail laced along the river, and up through a county park. A giant loop that started from , and ended at, the stables.

A man bought a country house and acreage near there. The house had been in the continuous hands of the same family ownership for 80+ yrs, before being sold to this new owner. The new owner had all the land surveyed. So that he knew exactly where his property boundaries were (he intended to graze sheep). Much of the land had never been fenced (since it's just rolling non-descript scrub-brush land, gullies, cliffs, etc...).

As it turns out, the trail the horse use from the nearby equestrian place, went along the Carmel River passing this land. And the horses (and dog accompanying the horse riders ) spooked the man's sheep. The man studied the property boundaries, and realized that the trail encroached onto his land (albeit by only a tad). So he put up a fence that blocked the trail. This would force the riders to the other side of the creek. But which was essentially impassible at that junction. Thus .... the trail riding days were over. The horse trails, which had been used for 50+ yrs. at this point, could no longer make the seamless round loop to reach a county park, and back again.

A legal battle ensued. The new property said the people were "trespassing" (to, gasp, walk the ~30 yard tip across the very edge of his property). The horse people cried that if that one part of the trail were cut off, how are they going to get to the rest of the trail where it picks up again beyond that invisible 30 yard section ?

Since the equestrian people were affluent, and the property owner was affluent, each side hired lawyers. The case wound through the legal system.

The horse people called in a very elderly local person who could recall (and testified that) trails, commonly used by anyone and every one , had simply always traversed the creek's side at that point. And that horse riding had always ever gone on there. But the property owner's defense what plat maps that clearly showed his property went all the way up to the creek-wash edge, he had land surveyors testifying. So it was simply a case of "50+ yrs. of trespassers". And it still didn't "make it right". And he had animal experts testifying that a horse or dog "frightens" his sheep. And he had map people making maps to show the horse people alternate routes (that were silly and circuitous) to avoid this teensy stretch.

The bottom line is, that the horse people won. They showed historical egress (or whatever the legal terms are called).

So now the only thing left to haggle out is, what is "allowable" ? Prior to the new man's ownership, if you had ever asked anyone, they'd have told you the "trail is public". NOT because anyone ever got out a ruler and measured anything, but .... simply because .... well .... anyone can and does walk there.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Tom there is no unowned land in America and there is big difference in walking across a trail on private property and using the trail as an excuse to justify digging on someone else's property, is is still private property, as already stated you can not advocate members to break the law by trespassing on someone's property.

I remember in Missouri over 25 years ago a man got in trouble for using a walking trail to fish in a private pond that was off the trail, he had no right to fish in the pond because the trail was on a old railroad easement on private property and the lake was private.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Kemper, we will keep deleting you and all your posts, no matter how many times you join under a new troll name, your on a lifetime ban.

 

[jeff of pa]

Yes. Which is why he would fill the holes and leave no trace, so that he has not "destructED" anything. All that you're saying is equally true of public property (like parks) as well. Someone could try to say that the mere act of us detecting "alters" or "defaces" something .

I realize this doesn't address the bigger issue (that , yes, technically he needs to head to the assessor's office before walking or detecting there). But just saying, the "risk of going to jail" because it would be called "destruction" is a bit of a stretch.

yes I would guess in most cases they don't put people in jail just for trespassing, unless they become belligerent.
and/or come back a second time.
unless the town has an empty jail & they need reason to keep it in business.
but why risk it ?

Here you need to make reservations for Jail for D.U.I.

 

[foiler]

20 years. Twenty years is a magic number in the law pertaining to trespass and right of way. If a trail is established and used for 20 years without the property owner stoppping it, including governments, then they can be sued for establishment of right of way. This doesn't give rights to usage of the land through which the trail passes but even that has been upheld in court for specific limited use. A property owner has the obligation to identify, protect and impede the access and use of their property from the public. The law says that the public must be 'notified' of any restrictions. That's what no trespass signs are for. That's what private property signs are for. That's what fences are for. All these are legal notices of private property and the owners wishes. As a property owner you cannot assume that the public knows the boundaries of your property. You must give 'notice'.

 

[ChampFerguson/TN]

There is no universal magic number. foiler knows Kansas better than I do so I will accept 20 for there.

Historical use does indeed convey a right to use a road/trail for all current and future users. As Tom posted, sometimes you have to go to court to assert that right tho.
Having a right of way/right to travel a trail Does Not legally grant one the right to use that land in other ways (metal detecting, mining, logging, rockhounding, etc). It is simple egress only.

One more thing and i'll try to quit this thread;
Look at it from the other side. What it your grandpa owned the land and you were saving it for that special hunt with a friend/child and someone ASSUMED it was OK to hunt your family's private property? Then did so and cleaned it out. If you don't like that idea, that tells you what to do. If you still hunt it anyway, that tells you what you are.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Thanx foiler. Then it just becomes a matter of: what actions are ok within "limited use ". I will agree that metal detecting could fall outside of that. Especially when we characterize it as "digging up " the place.

 

[Davers]

I was looking over some maps and found a completely abandoned colonial house, the house is still standing but boarded up and in ruin. I would assume that no one has been in it for at least 10 years, except for maybe teenagers. There are even woods starting to become it's front yard. It is away from other houses and next to public trails. I have no idea if it is owned by anyone and by who. I couldn't find any info about it on a search, just someone mentioning it as an abandoned property. Would it be okay to metal detect here?

I'd detect it. but that's just me ...
Always been a Rebel.

What I do on such an un-posted property is take a Contractor Trash Bag & Bucket (up to 5 Gallon).

Then pick-up trash for about an hour+ Then Detect & take all dug trash with me.

As you said "Not Posted, 10 or so years of neglect, near Trails ( likely a hangout to smoke Tweed, Drink a 12, or take your Girl Friend) even a good ole Ghost Hunt.

I'm ready to accept any Consequences that may occur from my decision to detect such places.

It's most likely been hunted already but YNK.

 

[Oddjob]

But how about a commonly forever-used trail that laces through a vacant field , or at the edge of a neighborhood or woods type thing ? Ok to walk the trail ? Or ? I believe that there's legal precedent that access through historically used routes (I forget the legal term used) is ok. But yes, this doesn't address what's allowable beyond that . Because, sure, the act of md'ing isn't the same as walking (although I happen to think it's pretty innocuous )

A story about this in next post:

The Moon Light Cattle Drive trail runs right through one of our Texas owned ranches; it is a historical trail and we have had many of trespassers attempt to claim this for excuses from anything to hunt, poach, fish, relic hunt, search for the Wells Fargo treasure. It did not matter because private property is private property regardless of its historical status.

On another ranch is an old Mexican Mission; again the property is private, however we have had people there as well and they too get prosecuted, does not matter if they claim they did not know, or what their interpretations of the law is or their so called intentions. It is trespassing and that alone is a punishable disturbance that can lead to criminal charges.

It does not matter if it is historical or not when it comes to private property. Trust me, many land owners who have production production would love nothing more than to NOT have historical site(s) on their property; works two ways, some things like Private Border Crossings are great to have, then things like structures can completely screw up production and even get the property owner fined if they have not abided by the laws in regards production stand off.

 

[Davers]

There is no universal magic number. foiler knows Kansas better than I do so I will accept 20 for there.

Historical use does indeed convey a right to use a road/trail for all current and future users. As Tom posted, sometimes you have to go to court to assert that right tho.
Having a right of way/right to travel a trail Does Not legally grant one the right to use that land in other ways (metal detecting, mining, logging, rockhounding, etc). It is simple egress only.

One more thing and i'll try to quit this thread;
Look at it from the other side. What it your grandpa owned the land and you were saving it for that special hunt with a friend/child and someone ASSUMED it was OK to hunt your family's private property? Then did so and cleaned it out. If you don't like that idea, that tells you what to do. If you still hunt it anyway, that tells you what you are.

I hope "Grandpa" has the place Bush Hogged before the Special Hunt. again YNK