A TICKET a Ticket I got a ticket!!!!! Yippie!!

[scubadetector]

Well 5 officers and a seargent said I was legal. Two officers and another seargent decided I was in a private lake. So I demanded a ticket for tresassing. They didn't want to give me one but NOW a judge can decide if parking on a PUBLIC road and going in a PUBLIC stream that goes UNDER the road is accessing the lake is tresspassing. Will keep you posted!! Going to talk to the police chief tomorrow also if I can. BUT all I found before I got evicted is a 10K class ring, 4 silver rings a silver bracelet, 3 silver quarters,a silver dime and a few wheats. An old whistle The Metropolitan made in England, looks like WW1 or before, and a few more old cars.

This should be interesting. I have read the laws up and down and backwards. I believe I am 100% in the right and so did the first 6 officers that were called to kick me out!! Poor rich people have NOTHING better to do. OHH the horrors, I am diving 20' to 30' below their innocent teenage children!!! What a friggin joke!! Will keep you posted!!

 

[mudpuppy]

Ones things for sure, you add alot of excitement and inspriation here! Of course now we must know what happens to you. Keep us posted with all the frivolity and merriment as you undergo this adventure! Maybe ask the Judge for permission to detect up in their YARDS for all the trouble they put you through!

 

[ZOFCHAK]

Scubadetector, as I mentioned in one of your other threads the law is not on your side on this one, and I don't think you are going to be happy with the outcome. . Look up "Michigan Riparian Rights" and pay special attention to the difference between inland waterways and the Great Lakes.

The one saving grace may be the complexity of the way they divide up the lake bottom. You may be able to argue that the homeowner pursuing the trespassing charges did not own the particular section of lake bottom that you were detecting, but if you were directly in front of their house that's going to be difficult.

 

[scubadetector]

I was a cop for 9 years also. 6 officers believed I am in the right. This isn't a private lake IF it has public access. A PUBLIC stream goes into this lake and so it is NOT surrounded by private lands. Anyway, thats what we have judges for!! The most I can get a ticket for is 50.00. I was in front of an accociation beach also. Yes the laws here are screwy to say the least.

Here is the BEST site I can find on the subject, You need Acrobat Reader to view it

http://www.pawpaw.net/forms/riverlake/publicrights.pdf


Some highlights in the article

"The right to public use of navigable lakes and streams includes the right of trespass upon the submerged
soil, but does not extend to the uplands of riparian owners while in such waters, or in entering or
departing from them.
It follows, therefore, that the numerous citations supporting the test of navigability on rivers is also
applicable to lakes. The determination of navigability and non-navigability is a civil process."

The broad underlying principle of Moore--that a watercourse's navigability is a function of its public
usefulness and value--convinced the court that the Michigan definition of "navigable waters" must be
expanded to include those waters which are suitable for public recreational use.
The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded by stating: "We therefore hold that members of the public
have the right to navigate and to exercise the incidents of navigation in a lawful manner at any point
below high water mark on waters of this state which are capable of being navigated by oar or motor
propelled small craft." Hallden at 181. "Capable of being navigated by oar" is deemed to include
navigation by canoe as well as by rowboat.


It also talks about streams and how big they are and sometimes they are dried up. SO if I am legally getting in, I can LEGALLY trespass on the bottom of the lake. So if the stream I am accessing is PUBLIC then the lake bottom is fair game.


LOL BUT, we are talking one person against a whole group of people in an association park!! And if you read the whole article judges make a whole slew of decisions either way. The DNR is another avenue I can talk to. FUN FUN FUN. I was told I can't enter the lake through this stream at ALL by the last officers. I think they are all WET.

 

[ZOFCHAK]

I'm not questioning the legality of diving the lake, or in walking on the submerged bottom. I think you're 100% correct that the navigational water laws allow you do so as long as you have legal access to the water. I think the murky issue is going to be the the detecting, and the removing of objects from the bottom itself. Here's a excerpt from that link you provided that mentions the ownership of land beneath our inland waterways.

From Michigan.gov and from the link you posted.


f. Do riparian owners hold rights to the subsoil of the center of the lake, to
water's edge at established or high water level, or within their property
lines?
In Bauman v Barendregt, 251 Mich. 67; 231 NW 70 (1930), the court stated the rules as
to this question as follows:
"A grant of land 'along the shore of' or by equivalent words or other description, bounded
by a natural water course carries title to the middle line of the lake or stream . . . ." (citing
Hartz v Railway, 153 Mich. 337 (190.
In Hardin v Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 391, 11 S.Ct 808, 35 L.Ed 428 (1890), the court said:
When land is bounded by lake or pond, the water, equally as in the case of
a river, is appurtenant to it; it constitutes one of the advantages of its
situation, and a material part of its value, and enters largely into the
consideration for acquiring it. Hence the presumption is that a grant of land
thus bounded is intended to include the contiguous land covered by water.
Besides, a lake or pond, like a river, is a concrete object, a unit, and when
named as a boundary, the natural inference is that the middle line of it is
intended, that is, the line equidistant from the land on either side.

Under these decisions, the riparian owners own the subsoil of an inland lake to the
center of the lake.



.

 

[ZOFCHAK]

On a side note, this is a commonly misunderstood law among waterfowl hunters in Michigan, and I have seen it lead to confrontations quite a few times. As of such, a DNR officer may be better versed in the particulars of the law than the local police, so they may be helpful when fighting the charges.

 

[scubadetector]

The ticket I got was for ACCESSING the water. LOL They said it was a private stream!! Not for trespassing on the bottom of the accociation park property. I do not believe anybody can own a stream that goes under a public road!! I don't actually want to fight. I just want to know IF I accessed the lake properly. I can hit lots of other places in the lake. I don't need to be by THAT accociation park again (lol till after they close on Labor Day!!)

 

[dbsmokey]

I think you are in the right, but left up to the meddling judicial system, your sweet hunting spot might be in peril. Look what happened to dredging in California...... I do hope for your sake that it comes out in your favor. It is very interesting reading your posts and drooling at the sight of your finds!

 

[deerman]

scuba detector accessed the lake by means of a Public river into the lake therefore its a navigable body of water as per federal law therefore
hes in the right to use the lake becouse its a federal law that its a navigable body of water it overrides state law.If the lake was all on private
property with no inlet or outlet the riparian law would apply at the lake,also would apply if no public access(no public road over or too river) to the river.and in michigan if a log has EVER been floated down a river,stream,or creek its also a navigable body of water!!!

 

[Degries]

Good luck Robert. I think you are in the right as long as you did not go across anyones personal property. I would also check on the DNR webiste to see if the lake was ever stocked by them, if so then the lake belongs to every tax payer.

 

[DDazzzle]

Keep us posted on how you get on, good luck to you

 

[Furious T]

I dont wwant to be too sceptical about this, but sometimes a judicial decision doesn't depend on whether you are in the right or in the wrong. Other things that can come into play are local politics and which "club" the judge may belong to. If these "rich people" have far-reaching influence (monetry or otherwise), then you may receive an unfavourable decision. A Judge in a lower court could be optimistic that you would not appeal his decision because of the legal cost to you. I hope it turns out in your favour, and I know we need to be able to trust our judicial systems, but, sadly, sometimes that trust can be misplaced. Have really enjoyed your accounts of your hunts, and hope that you can continue. HH

 

[itsaawgood]

I hope you win this one! I also live here in Michigan and are crossing my fingers you prevail in this quest as I look forward to enjoying the spoils of some of the many, many inland lakes around here...for now I just stick to the public launch areas.

 

[thevacantface]

If you bring forward the proper legal evidence then no judge in their right mind would rule against you because if they show prejudice or favoritism in a case that is roundly overturned on appeal, they would run the real risk of being disbarred. Hopefully you get it tossed with a great opinion so you can be wading there just knee deep and have them ticketed for harassment if they try to complain.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

zophchak, you say:

" I think the murky issue is going to be the the detecting, and the removing of objects from the bottom itself. "

Seriously now dude, if this type of question bothers you, then I fear you have chosen the wrong hobby. Because let's face it: where in the name of pete are you expecting to detect (parks, beaches, school yards, etc...) and NOT "remove" an object? What did you think the object of our hobby was, to begin with?

 

[ZOFCHAK]

zophchak, you say:

" I think the murky issue is going to be the the detecting, and the removing of objects from the bottom itself. "

Seriously now dude, if this type of question bothers you, then I fear you have chosen the wrong hobby. Because let's face it: where in the name of pete are you expecting to detect (parks, beaches, school yards, etc...) and NOT "remove" an object? What did you think the object of our hobby was, to begin with?

We're not talking about detecting public parks, beaches and school yards, otherwise this would not even be an issue.

This issue directly affects me a bit more than most, and that is one of the reasons I am concerned that the outcome may end up being less than positive. You see, I happen to detect the same areas that Scubadetector does and there's a good chance I'll have to deal with the same officers in the future. As it stands now few homeowners around here even know that they own the land beneath the water, and honestly I would like to keep it that way Even the officers that Scubadetector is dealing with seem oblivious to the private property issues involving the lake bottom, as according to Scuba the ticket he received was for not having legal access to the lake itself, not for detecting on private property.



I'm honestly worried that if the issue is pressed, and the law ends up not being on our side that it may become increasingly difficult for those of us that continue to detect the lakes in this area.

 

[Maxwedge]

GOOD LUCK ON THAT. MY PRAYERS ARE WITH YOU-MARK BEAT UM

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Zophchak, you say:

"We're not talking about detecting public parks, beaches and school yards ....."

You have to understand that those same "collecting" type verbage rules, ARE on all public land, public beaches, etc.... too. So, yes, I repeat: if this type rules/verbage bothers a person, then they've chosen the wrong hobby. Every single park, school, whether it be city, county, or state, has some sort of prohibitions on "collecting", or "altering", or "removing" items (in addition to lost & found laws).

The logic is simple Zophchak: without these rules, what's to stop someone from backing up their truck to the local park, and harvesting all the tan-bark or turf for use in their own garden? Or un-bolting the swing-set and taking it home? But think of it: there's nothing to stop these same rules from applying to individual park features like the coins, rings, etc... And believe it or not, sometimes some cop HAS applied these type rules to us. It usually happens when someone is getting booted, so the iritated md'r says "but why? what rule have I broken?" (hoping to burden of proof back on them, to produce some written rule that forbids metal detecting). The confused cop or city worker leafs through the rule book, and presto! An answer to your "pressing question".

So the issue as you state it, the "removing of objects from public land", DOES apply to detecting ALL public land, not just the bottom of the particular water-way of the topic of this post. And if this type thing bothers a person, then they're probably going to have to choose another hobby, or stay strictly on private property with permission.

 

[scubadetector]

He will be talking to the Chief and calling me back tomorrow. He said in all the years he has been on the force he never had a problem like this. LOL he agreed about the snobs on the lake!! The road I am accessing the lake on is public, The PUBLIC owns from the center to 33' on each side. SO that means the stream I am on is PUBLIC and NOBODY owns the surface of the water so launching my canoe is totally legal.

DNR said I could be tresspassing on their bottom lands BUT anchoring my boat and swimming are completly legal in their so called association park. If you swim and touch the bottom there is absolutely NO law against it. DNR also said their DEED has to show they own the water to the center of the lake. AND IF I am tresspassing it HAS to be observed by a POLICE officer that I am actually digging items up on their property. I can dive it and touch the bottom and there is NOTHING they can do. However taking items off the bottom MIGHT be an issue.

The lieutenant will be talking to the chief tomorrow and getting back to me tomorrow. He hasn't told me what I got the ticket for exactly either. Except for some local ordanance. Which if it is against state or federal law, there will be a problem with that also. Will keep you posted. IF I am found guilty of taking items off the bottom of their property, it looks as if I can get a 50.00 fine. Sounds like 4 silver quarters and a dime.

 

[ZOFCHAK]

Yeah, I think the gold and silver will more than cover the fines (If there are any) So far the response you received from the police sounds promising. It seems as if worst case scenario you may simply have to avoid the area immediately in front of the property owners that complain. Or as mentioned earlier, just wait until the weather turns a bit. Then they'll all be hiding in their Mc Mansions and won't even notice that you're there.