Ask her to cite you the ordinance. When she does (St. Augustine City), ask her which beaches that applies to.
Seriously, cops have a bad habit of fabricating imaginary laws. If you point out that they're incorrect and stand your ground, they'll arrest you for 'disturbing the peace' or 'resisting arrest without violence' or whatever other bullshit catch-all charge they have in their 'respect mah' authoritah' arsenal.
The good news is, you'd win a nice settlement if they actually did arrest you for MD'ing in Anastasia State Park.
Seriously, one of the more obnoxious problems we face in a bureaucratic nightmare country is that the people we trust to enforce the laws are almost never bright enough to really understand them. Lawyers who spend 8 years in school hardly do.
LM, you're right, jax-pirate may have simply got some sherrif's personal whims or interpretation, whereas perhaps no actual specific rule exists. But the PROBLEM now is, if he were to do as you say (and ask: "where is that written?"), it's going to be a downhill slide! Because the problem is twofold:
1) The sherrif can simply morph SOMETHING ELSE to apply to the question. You know, the dreaded "alterations" clauses, or verbage that disallows "collecting" (so that no one thinks they can back up their truck to the beach, to harvest truck loads of sand for personal use). In other words, the rule does not have to be "specfic" in the first place. Laws, afterall, are often written vaguely, so as to apply to a myriad of circumstances, as they arise in the field. And there are even nebulous laws that do things like forbid "annoyances", or whatever. I too used to think that a law or rule had to specifically say "no metal detecting". But a lawyer friend of mine assured me that cops (or sheriffs, or rangers, or gardeners, or any duly appointed govt. official given over-site to manage) have latitude to interpret as they see fit. And judges and superior managers will almost always side with the low -ranking beat cop or gardener. If it WEREN'T this way, then think of it: everyone, everywhere, would be endlessly debating cops in the field over semantics. Ie.: you could wear a single sock, and waltz around in the park nude. And when the cop tries to boot you for violating the anti-nudity ordinance, what's to stop you from debating him that wearing a single sock therefore, technically, means you're not nude? So you see, there's reason that public officials are given latitude in doing their job, and applying rules to a variety of situations that arise in day-to-day situations. It's simply impossible to make an endless list of things that are "allowed" or "not allowed", so there's a legitimate purpose in making laws meldable to apply to situations as they arise, or as complaints merit.
2) Nonetheless, some people have done exactly what you've said, and when confronted with a "no", they do just as you say, and say "where is that written?" (as if to put the burden of proof on the person, to produce such an actual specific rule). This can back-fire, not only d/t reason # 1 above, but also because some entities have actually been know, to IMPLEMENT a rule (or across-the-board policy, or whatever), forevermore thereafter, to "address this pressing issue", to close the loophole of lack of aspecific rule. In other words, you can end up essentially getting a rule WRITTEN (or policy implemented, or whatever), to address your issue
As a proof example of this, there was a link that circulated around awhile back, where an entire city (which had a historic downtown district, an old fort site, etc...) was contemplating making a "no detecting" rule, for their entire city. The link circulated on some forums for the typical "let's fight this" type reasons. What was
fascinating to me, when reading this article link, was the GENESIS of the REASON for the city contemplating this, in the first place! : It very clearly said that the city had received several calls, where persons had asked if they could detect. One call, for example, the caller followed it up with something like " ....
and if you're going to tell me 'no', be prepared to let me know where that is written" I know the caller probably didn't mean that as a threat. They probably innocently and sincerely just figured that if the city personell was going to tell them "no", that there should be an actual rule saying such a thing. But see how that back-fires? See how that can merely become the fire under their b*tts to implement a specific rule!!??
