Heres a true possibility:

[Tom_in_CA]

Here's a true possibility:

If you've been into the hobby for any length of time, then no doubt you've been called out to find things for friends, relatives, etc.... Like someone looses a ring, and call you, because they know this is your hobby for instance. Heck, my own wife lost her earing 2 times, and each time I went out and found it: Once in a public park, and the other time in our own front yard while she was gardening. Each time she figures: " oh I'll just get Tom to find it".

Next: If any of you have found gold rings, you no doubt thought "bingo, score another". I mean, duh, why else are we in the hobby, right? If you look at the finds forums on any md'ing website, you will see lots of daily examples (especially on beach forums) of fellows finding gold rings. Right?

Ok: with the above 2 facts in place, then picture this:

Your wife is out at the city park with your toddler son or grandson, pushing him on the swing set. She sees her wedding ring fly off as she gave a big push to the kid on the swings. She walks over to where she thought she saw it fling to, and scratches around in the loose sand. But to no avail

But she thinks to herself: "My husband has a metal detector, so I'll just have him come find it." So she calls you on her cell-phone, and explains. You agree that this is a cake-walk easy-to-find item, and let her know that as soon as you get off work, you'll swing by the park.

That afternoon, you get off work, and go to the park, and walk to the exact area your wife described a few hours earlier. But lo & behold, you can't find it

After 5 minutes of scrubbing the snot out of all the possible areas it could have flung to, you notice a gentleman sitting the park bench watching you. Eventually the stranger's curiousity gets the better of him, so he comes over to see what you're doing. And then he says to you "gee it's funny that you're hunting so hard in this small confined area. Because I've been sitting on that bench for an hour. And about an hour ago, another man came along detecting that area. And as he passed by this one spot, I saw him stop, study something he'd just found, let out a 'yahoo', and then he left".

So you quickly deduce that this stranger must have found your wife's ring!

Ok then: who does the ring belong to : You and your wife? Or to the person who found it?

If you say "It still belongs to my wife and I", then ........... how do you justify your position of paragraph 2 at the start of this thread? I mean, how then do you willfully keep other rings you've found ?

Perhaps you'll say "because they don't have identifying marks". Hmmm, ok then, why pray-tell did you think it was ok for the guy who beat you to the sandbox, to keep your wife's ring, "because it had no identifying marks"? You certainly thought HE had no right to keep your wife's ring, and that finder's keepers didn't apply, right? So how the double standard ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Terry Soloman]

Tom, you gotta stop drinking and posting brother!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hey Terry, nah, I missed my triple-martini lunch today. It's sober people like you who don't think straight enough! haha

 

[cudamark]

IMO, if the wife was still active in the search, it belongs to her. When she abandoned the search (even temporarily) it's up for grabs. If it was that valuable to her, she should have kept watch until help arrived. If I was the finder, it's mine. Personally, I would still try to find the person who lost it but that decision should be left up to the finder and their conscience.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

ok

IMO, if the wife was still active in the search, it belongs to her. When she abandoned the search (even temporarily) it's up for grabs. If it was that valuable to her, she should have kept watch until help arrived. If I was the finder, it's mine. Personally, I would still try to find the person who lost it but that decision should be left up to the finder and their conscience.

Mark , that's a fair enough answer . Thanx. Because. afterall, there may actually be some sort of legal verbage about "what constitutes abandonment". etc...

Not sure of the legal language of that is. I'd find it hard to believe though , that a judge would consider it abandoned because you merely turn your back , or leave to retrieve or await your metal detector.

But let's just go with what you're saying though : Are you saying that if that were you & your wife , if you knew the guy that found it, that you're really going to let him just keep it? You really consider it to belong to the other guy who perhaps you know from your local club?

Based on what you (and now shepcal) are saying, then if the md'r across town says "too bad", then ...... you'd concede the point, and consider him under no obligation to give you the ring back. I mean, to be totally consistent with what you're saying. You're saying you'd have no legal grounds to demand it back, according to your own logic and beliefs.

Is this what you're saying?

 

[shepcal]

I'm going to have to totally agree with cudamark on this. Just like a nugget patch on open ground, you leave and someone else is there next time- it's your loss and you move on.

added- Hopefully, if you and your wife approached the person and explained situation, he would give it back. Most of the people I know would. If she left, it wasn't that important to her. Brings up another point, kid can swing itself; how come she didn't have a detector with her or at least in car? or at least a pin-pointer!

Shep

 

[BabyNeedsANewPairO'Shoes]

Tom, I don't know that there is a double standard when there is no way to prove who the original owner is. If a piece of jewelry is inscribed with information that could possibly lead to an owner, I think my ethics would compel me to make at least an honest effort to return it. But if it's generic, its' mine.

If my wife's ring falls off and you sneak up and grab it before she notices, you're a thief. If I see you do it, I punch you in the nose. If you wait until we leave and take it, you're a jerk and a thief. But I haven't seen you do it, so to me it is simply lost.

If I don't know where it is, and someone I don't know finds it, and they have no way to know who it belongs to, it's their good luck. If it ends up in a pawn shop and I see it and recognize it I have the right to buy it but I have no right to demand it back for free. Once it's out of my possession and out of my control it's on the open market.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

BabyNeedsANewPairO'Shoes, What you are saying rests heavily on the following statement of yours, that it belongs to the md'r/finder:

" ...... when there is no way to prove who the original owner is ..."

To be totally consistent with what you're saying then, you would have to say you are totally comfortable with the md'r, in my story, keeping your ring (because let's say there was no ID'ing marks inside of it). And that it would only belong back to you, if you alert the guy that it's yours. Like for example, if you saw him at the next md'ing club meeting, and recognized your ring. Ok. Fair enough.

But you have to understand that such ambiguous arbitrary calls are NOT left up to the finder, to decide whether or not he "knows" the real owner. I mean, heck, the same could be said of a racing bike I see propped up next to a light-pole. I could say "the owner is un-known to me, therefore it's mine to keep"? Or even a class ring with initials inside: am I under an obligation to track down the owner via the class year book? Or the wad of cash that fell out of the brinks armored car, or the wandering cattle, etc... Thus no, the law doesn't allow for the finder to decide whether or not he knows the person, or knows they're still looking, etc... It simply and clearly says that any item worth over $100 is to be turned in to the police, for proper lost & found procedures.

Because let's face it: If the law DIDN'T say that, then let's be honest: everyone who "finds" something (wandering cattle, racing bikes, cash, etc...) would and could all say "it's an unknown owner".

And by the way: lost and found laws have also been used to corral thieves as well. You know, the guy walking down the street from the scene of a crime with a color TV set in his hand. He merely says "but I just found it sitting on the curb". All such reasons (even if true and someone really DID 'just find it') therefore don't hold water in a court of law. Why? Because of the very reasons I speak of.

But what you are doing, is melding (read "breaking") the "technical wording of the laws" to fit for reality. It's just common sense. The normal average person realizes that 99% of the stuff we find has been lost months, years, or decades ago. And that 99% of the things we find are in fact not inscribed with owners traceable info (plain bands, rings with no laser inscriptions or insurance marks, etc...) . And hence, the odds of someone going into the police station 10 yrs. later, to "see if they found his band from the beach", are really 100% absurdly impossible.

However, the law is the law. And technically speaking, the code you are going by, that we ALL go by, isn't in compliance. And you can see the reasons why, otherwise it opens up the pandora's box for everyone to jump on that band-wagon. Hence ... the law.

I know this will not stop anyone, on any forum, nor any md'r, from "racing down to the police station every time they find a ring". But I find it interesting, that when other laws are discussed, no one tries to bring in this "common sense" approach of yours. Specifically when it concerns questions of hunting things like vacant lots, or yard of abandoned homes, or stepping over yellow ribbon (or hopping a fence) to hunt an old-town-urban demolition site. If someone takes your common sense approach of NOT following the literal reading of the law (ie.: the "who really cares?" approach), then they are scolded and pounced on. Yet for some reason, everyone easily treats the lost-&-found laws with the "who really cares?" approach.

Thus really then, we ALL apply "common sense", and DON'T necessarily apply a literal reading to laws, then do we ?

 

[BabyNeedsANewPairO'Shoes]

I agree. There are countless laws, regulations, rules and codes that overlap, intersect and contradict in every part of our lives. And there are hundreds added every year and precious few removed. It is likely you and I and every person on this forum have unknowingly violated several of them today and do so daily.

So unless you have the time and desire to memorize thousands of pages of rules, laws and statutes for everything from your village association to the federal government, and attempt to live within all those strictures, the only practical recourse is common sense. And even if you could live strictly within the law, there are plenty of law enforcement officers and agents who are willing not to.

I believe I have far more chance of running up against the fickle vagaries of "the law" driving to work and back than I have spending a pleasant afternoon MD'ing the park. And to show that I do try to live my life in a consistent manner, I will not hesitate to run a stuck stop light when I'm at a lonely intersection in the middle of the night and I probably don't pay as much taxes as the government would think appropriate.

I see laws more as "guidelines" and I let my personal moral compass be the guide I believe we all own ourselves and if what you or I do harms no one else and does not involve force or fraud, there is no harm and no victim and no one has any moral authority to tell you to stop.

Let me ask you:
You're MDing a park where someone is watching you. You bend down and pick up an unmarked gold ring in the grass. One of the people sees you find it and approaches you claiming that they were "there last week and dropped it. Please give it back to me." What will you do?

 

[Follows Camp Craig]

O shoes' I have trolled for a joust or a stab from you and anyone else on this site and I have found barely a poke until now.
I am glad to see who you really are. for I am the same.
(you have me on ignore so I could never convey this heart felt message)
You sir, are right on the money and very well said.

Your Brother, Craig.

"E Clampus Vitus"

 

[BabyNeedsANewPairO'Shoes]

You're not the one I'm ignoring, bro.

 

[Follows Camp Craig]

Whew, kind of feel happier then a family of "vinegaroons in a fart sack"
"sting less scorpions in a sleeping bag"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

...... There are countless laws, regulations, rules and codes that overlap, intersect and contradict in every part of our lives. And there are hundreds added every year and precious few removed. It is likely you and I and every person on this forum have unknowingly violated several of them today and do so daily.

So unless you have the time and desire to memorize thousands of pages of rules, laws and statutes for everything from your village association to the federal government,

O'shoes, good post. However, the above statement of yours rests heavily on an implied aspect of not knowing a million laws. And that, therefore, how can we knock-ourselves-silly trying to go around learning and keeping them all? (and that, thus, common sense is good enough to suffice). But ...... this would only be true in-so-far as a person doesn't KNOW about a particular law. In this case, anyone reading this thread, DOES now know about this law. Therefore, ...... anyhow, you get the pix

....You're MDing a park where someone is watching you. You bend down and pick up an unmarked gold ring in the grass. One of the people sees you find it and approaches you claiming that they were "there last week and dropped it. Please give it back to me." What will you do?

Well all I have to say about this question, is that the question itself reeks of a set-up. And/or has need of too many clarifying scenarios to decide. For example: did that other person come up to you and perfectly describe what it was you just found? If so, you'd be hard-pressed and cruel NOT to give it back (and he'd probably punch you in the nose, or call the cops). Because in that case, it implies that the ring truly is his.

Or is this a case of where you show some stranger a ring you just found, and THEN they make such claims?

So ..... you'd need to refine the question. And this, by the way, is a question that's come up often on the forums. Interesting.

 

[cudamark]

Mark , that's a fair enough answer . Thanx. Because. afterall, there may actually be some sort of legal verbage about "what constitutes abandonment". etc...

Not sure of the legal language of that is. I'd find it hard to believe though , that a judge would consider it abandoned because you merely turn your back , or leave to retrieve or await your metal detector.

But let's just go with what you're saying though : Are you saying that if that were you & your wife , if you knew the guy that found it, that you're really going to let him just keep it? You really consider it to belong to the other guy who perhaps you know from your local club?

Based on what you (and now shepcal) are saying, then if the md'r across town says "too bad", then ...... you'd concede the point, and consider him under no obligation to give you the ring back. I mean, to be totally consistent with what you're saying. You're saying you'd have no legal grounds to demand it back, according to your own logic and beliefs.

Is this what you're saying?

If the item can be identified positively (inscription, detailed description, photo, serial number, etc) then naturally, it still belongs to whoever lost it. If it can't be tied to a particular owner, (like all the coins we find) then it belongs to the finder. If there is some gray area in that, that is what judges are for. If I see an item at a club show and tell and it matches a description of a known lost ring, I'll let the finder know. If they don't have any interest in returning it, that's their business. They'll have to live with that on their conscience....if they have any. I might try to shame them into returning it, but it's still their decision. As for legal grounds for my opinion.....I have none. I'm no lawyer. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right and just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. I tend to like the "Golden Rule" the best and use it as my guide.

 

[mariposagold]

I spoke with a Police officer about this awhile back. I told him that if I found something of significant, that I would make some attempt to located the owner. His response "That's more than we would do". I never accept legal advice from the Police, they are not attorney's. Nonetheless, California law reads:


CAL. PEN. CODE § 485 : California Code - Section 485

"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft. "

No markings, no real knowledge. However, the uniqueness of the item in itself could be enough to pave a path to the original owner. A Craigslist add would suffice for notice indicating where and when it was found and asking for a description from anyone attempting to claim the item. But one thing I've learned in the 13 years I've worked in and around the law is, interpretation of the law can vary from personal opinion to Civil Law or Criminal Law.

This too could be problematic for us that like to post our finds on Tnet for bragging rights. A net savvy con artist could link one act with the other and lay claim to a missing item for which they did not lose.

I'm sure this has entered into the mind of many treasure hunters when contemplation what to do with that nice Gold ring with Diamonds and Rubies.

 

[TheRingFinder]

I have found hundreds of rings over the years, and this is my take on it.

If I find a ring, I keep it for the year and try to find the owner. If I find the owner, great, they get their ring back. If after a year, I can't find the owner, then I cash it in.

To me, it is their ring no matter what, they bought and accidently lost it. On the other hand, I can not spend my whole life looking for this person who lost the ring.

 

[mariposagold]

I have found hundreds of rings over the years, and this is my take on it.

If I find a ring, I keep it for the year and try to find the owner. If I find the owner, great, they get their ring back. If after a year, I can't find the owner, then I cash it in.

To me, it is their ring no matter what, they bought and accidently lost it. On the other hand, I can not spend my whole life looking for this person who lost the ring.

Nothing wrong with that policy. I have only found one thing that I could return, and that was a Cell phone. I enjoyed returning it to the rightful owner and I would like nothing more than to find something else to return, but just the same, I would like to find a pile of non-returnable Gold.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

mariposa-gold, I will not dispute your text, of the law that you give here. It appears to be a direct cut & paste, so how can I ? However, are you sure you're quoting that entirely in context ? Ie.: was there more paragraphs to that? Like isn't there some reference to value ? $100, $250, etc.. ? Because the last I studied this matter (which was several years ago), the laws that dealt with lost & found in CA stipulated that you are required to turn in items to the police, if they exceeded $100 value.

I don't recall reading that it only applies to items in which : " .... circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner ...." What you're cutting and pasting here seems rather arbitrary. I mean, let's face it: WHO'S TO DECIDE what "circumstances" or clues etc.... are reasonable to find an owner ? I mean, heck, that leaves it up for personal interpretation as to weights of clues and so forth. Anyone can simply claim that they didn't believe there was sufficient clues to find the owner. Nor does what your citing stipulate how much effort must be expended, and so forth. You know, like take your bigger diamonds all down to a jeweler, to check to see if any of them are micro-laser inscribed (which takes microscopes to read), to see if there's an insurance marks? Or if you try to trace a class ring, and you call the school, and you get the run-around from some desk-clerk who thinks you're trying to sell something, or that passing out names of persons in a graduating class is against privacy laws, etc....

There's just way to much whimsical arbitrary judgement calls in what you cite. But if CA's laws changed, then so be it. By golly, then if I don't see name, address, and telephone # on the wandering cattle, briefcase of cash at a bank-robbery scene, class rings, cell-phones, racing bikes, etc..., then by-golly, I don't think I have sufficient means of finding the owner.

And heck, why even use craigslist? Why not just hang a sheet of paper on a phone pole in the general vicinity of where you found it ? You know, like some people hang "lost dog" flyers, then why can't a "found item" ad stapled to a pole suffice as your "reasonable effort" ? You see how whimsical & open-to-interpretation this is ?

 

[mariposagold]

Tom, that is the whole point. Who interprets what the law says and how it applies in determining whether or not a party acted correctly, incorrectly, Civilly Liable, or Criminally Liable. I'm sure there are more law applicable to the topic, and should I have time, I'll further my statements based on what I read. That's if I get some down time. I'd prefer to hunt. But hunting for information is fun too!

I don't believe that under most circumstances, few of us would even remotely be affected by these laws. But it doesn't hurt to know what the laws are and how we can protect ourselves. Finding something that was stolen, for example, is still possession of stolen property and can easily lead to interpretation of cops or prosecutors in the case.

I'll post more on this soon and further answer your comments.

 

[BabyNeedsANewPairO'Shoes]

I have no doubt that what Mariposagold posted, California Penal Code § 485, is complete and contains no further context or guidelines. This is the nature of law. Any citation of civil law will contain such vagaries as "reasonable" and "just efforts". That's how law is written. So there can be no hard and fast rules and that's why our legal system has judges.

Tom wrote "There's just way to much whimsical arbitrary judgement calls in what you cite."

Legislators rate their effectiveness by how much law they get passed. They write their legislation in vague, squishy verbiage with the thought that "we'll get this passed...then let the courts figure it out". Look at Obamacare.

By the way, Mariposagold, some 40 years ago I lived not far from OakHurst and Mariposa in a valley called Bailey Flats. Are you familiar with it?