Led away in Handcuffs

[rocket136]

This morning as my wife and I were returing form a shoreline walk we saw county officials asking a couple of men to move their "set up" from infront of The Retreat at Blue Mountain Beach. About an hour later my wife saw him being led from the beach in handcuffs for tresspassing. One of the men was taking pictures... maybe we'll see them post them here.

I know from reading previous posts that this is a hot button issue but it seems that some want to enforce the "letter of the law". I saw where they were placed and it was close to the water line very near the boundry of the Inn at Blue Mountain. They seemed to minding their own business. As the sherriff left I happened to walk by them and heard "I think it was the right call... where the wet sand meets the dry".

I'm confused, the beachgoers were were set up outside of the posted signs. If the owners really want to keep people out can they fence in their beach? (not that I'd want to see that)

In the many years of coming to SoWal I've always been impressed with the civility of residents and tourists -- although I have heard some horror stories. We abolutely love it here and treat it as though we already live here. But I was very surprised that it seems the owners are calling the country for what seems such a small infraction -- seems like a waste.

This was the second day in a row that I saw county officials inforcing the private beach rule.

Is the pendulum swinging?

[seacrestkristi]

rocket136, that is just a bunch of horse hockey! I can't believe how greedy some folks can be, not sharing the beach. It's not like they were disturbing anyone from what you're describing.

[Smiling JOe]

I'm confused, the beachgoers were were set up outside of the posted signs. If the owners really want to keep people out can they fence in their beach? (not that I'd want to see that)

It wasn't me. I wonder if it was Bobby J . I wonder how many people they could hold in our jail??? I can read the headlines now, "Walton County Jail, overcrowded with beach goers, leaves the Sheriff with no place to lock up violent criminals."

My guess is that they would have to be permitted to do so by the DEP and I don't see it being likely that the DEP would issue one.

[Ocean Lover]

Free BobbyJ, Free Bobby J!

[elgordoboy]

Fence building, law-breaking, filling up jail cells with non-violent misdemeanor offenders leaving no room for violent criminals---oops sorry folks I am in the wrong thread thought it was the Immigration Debate. This sucks too though.

[Hop]

handcuffs??? seriously?!?!? has it really come to that???

[ShallowsNole]

If the "owners" of that patch of sand file a complaint, and they insist that the "trespassers" be removed, the officers have no choice but to treat the "offenders" as if they were camping in your back yard - lest they be accused of selectively enforcing laws.

Of course, some officers are better negotiators than others. Seems to me that handcuffs could have been avoided, but at least they didn't use leg irons - hard to walk up the hill in those.

Also seems to me that "owners" of a piece of beach that would call the law and tie them up on silly stuff like that need to take a anti-pucker pill and wash it down with a stiff drink.

**Note: opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of anyone associated with the WCSO...**

[rocket136]

handcuffs??? seriously?!?!? has it really come to that???

I kidd you not...

I haven't posted much but I've been lurking for a long time. I just couldn't let this one go without people knowing.

Seacrestkristi: thanks for the welcome! not only have you got a beautiful place I'm amazed at the sense of community fostered by the forum

While on vacation down here over the years I've met many locals and I can really feel for them. Right now some of the very wealthy are moving in and the change has mixed reviews. Not wanting to lump everyone into the same label but the lady I saw yesterday egging on the county official to kick them out and was heard saying "if you paid a million dollars for your property you would protect it too".
If they claim beach rights what's next? water rights? Air rights? (I can just see some of the extremists taking pot shots at the realestatefiresales.com plane for flying over their beach)

[JB]

I think there must be a little more to this story. If he/they were in front of the retreat, they would have had to either a) walk a long distance from the nearest public access, or b) enter the Retreat community illegally.

[Beach Runner]

The irony is that beachfront developers try to claim up to the high-water mark as their property for the purpose of density computations (and that acreage is what shows up on the county tax appraiser's website), when in reality the buildable area from P.O.B. is much less than that. So I guess if they can try to claim part of the beach to justify their high-density developments, they (as well as beachfront owners) can try to prohibit people from trespassing on their property that extends to the water line.

IMO this is absolutely absurd.

[Smiling JOe]

I think there must be a little more to this story. If he/they were in front of the retreat, they would have had to either a) walk a long distance from the nearest public access, or b) enter the Retreat community illegally.

Not really. It could have been someone who was renting on Redfish Circle which has an access next door to The Retreat.

[scooterbug44]

HANDCUFFS! I was already pissed off about something else, so this is just gasoline on the fire!

I want this to be an issue in the next Sheriff's election - I can see removing people doing something offensive, but based on the posts they were close to the wet sand and not doing anything wrong!

[JB]

HANDCUFFS! I was already pissed off about something else, so this is just gasoline on the fire!

I want this to be an issue in the next Sheriff's election - I can see removing people doing something offensive, but based on the posts they were close to the wet sand and not doing anything wrong!

Y'all know how I feel about this issue, but.....the law is the law (regardless of how ridiculous). The Sheriff's hands were tied (no pun intended).

[scooterbug44]

True, a law is a law and if you don't like it, change it instead of violating it......... but my concern is what OTHER laws were being broken/going unenforced while our taxpayer funded sheriff's department was leading away ostensibly innocent beachgoers/tourists in handcuffs! That will certainly be good for the lagging economy when reports/pics get out!

What a waste of time, resources, and bile! Good gravy - why is this such a problem for these people? As I've said before, noone ever takes a patch of sand your blanket/rear end is occupying!

If these people were drunk and disorderly, testing the boundaries, causing trouble, then by all means arrest them, but the posts sound like they were close to the waterline and behaving!

I've had it with people's incredibly selfish behavior and need to ruin other people's funn!!!

[Miss Kitty]

I sure would like to hear from the criminals....

[RiverOtter]

This morning as my wife and I were returing form a shoreline walk we saw county officials asking a couple of men to move their "set up" from infront of The Retreat at Blue Mountain Beach. About an hour later my wife saw him being led from the beach in handcuffs for tresspassing. One of the men was taking pictures... maybe we'll see them post them here.

I know from reading previous posts that this is a hot button issue but it seems that some want to enforce the "letter of the law". I saw where they were placed and it was close to the water line very near the boundry of the Inn at Blue Mountain. They seemed to minding their own business. As the sherriff left I happened to walk by them and heard "I think it was the right call... where the wet sand meets the dry".

I'm confused, the beachgoers were were set up outside of the posted signs. If the owners really want to keep people out can they fence in their beach? (not that I'd want to see that)

In the many years of coming to SoWal I've always been impressed with the civility of residents and tourists -- although I have heard some horror stories. We abolutely love it here and treat it as though we already live here. But I was very surprised that it seems the owners are calling the country for what seems such a small infraction -- seems like a waste.

This was the second day in a row that I saw county officials inforcing the private beach rule.

Is the pendulum swinging?

Did you get any pix

[Smiling JOe]

Y'all know how I feel about this issue, but.....the law is the law (regardless of how ridiculous). The Sheriff's hands were tied (no pun intended).

... and just what is the law in this case? I think there are opposing views on the laws, especially since the public has used the beach without anyone defending it as their own, up until this year. The law may not read as clearly as a deed.


This incident makes me want to bring about 400 of my closest friends and set up on the beach in front of the property where this took place.

[rocket136]

Did you get any pix

Unfortunately I did not get any pics but my wife and daughter saw it. One of the men did take pictures. I did see the sheriff as well as his staff and I heard what he or the official that was with him said. I spoke briefly with the county official on patrol who commented that that the entire incident was unfortunate
I'll be watching tomorrow...

[GoodWitch58]

it's beginning to look like hauling folks off the beach is competing with flying helicopters around looking for marijuana plants as the duty of choice for the local sheriff's office.

When is the next election? Oh yeah, and the County Finance Officer is running....

[NoHall]

Fence building, law-breaking, filling up jail cells with non-violent misdemeanor offenders leaving no room for violent criminals---oops sorry folks I am in the wrong thread thought it was the Immigration Debate. This sucks too though.

Hmm? What? Sorry...I was terribly distracted by your 'tar...

[redfisher]

I think its kind of foolish, but the law is the law...I don't understand the hostility towards the sheriff...And I understand the hostility against the owner but its their land...In some cases, the beach beyond the high water mark is NOT for sharing...Ive been asked to move on when fishing from in front of there and so moved my feet in the water and thumbed my nose at the guard...However, if a bunch of people showed up at your community pool and took up shop, are you willing to waive your right to ask them to leave so you can set up shop on that other fellas beach....

Finally, what are the top 10 arrest categories for the sheriff's dept in Walton Co?...Is it posted somewhere?...I'd be curious what they use all those new squad cars for....Red

[GoodWitch58]

Redfisher, do you live here? If not, maybe that's why you don't understand the feelings some of us have toward the Sheriff's department? If so, then perhaps you have never needed help from the Sheriff's staff, never called asking for assistance, or never noticed how they behave.....

[jack S]

Here is a link to the 2002 attny gnl opinion. The last opinion I can find. The sheriff needs to explain the enforcement criteria that is being used. According to Commissioner Meadows office, The opinion of the attorney general is the guide? http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Op...256BC70052F5BD

[JB]

... and just what is the law in this case? I think there are opposing views on the laws, especially since the public has used the beach without anyone defending it as their own, up until this year. The law may not read as clearly as a deed.


This incident makes me want to bring about 400 of my closest friends and set up on the beach in front of the property where this took place.

I'm all about civil disobedience. Go for it.

But when you consider the Retreat is one of the highest of the high-end developments, I'm guessing the law might respond a little quicker than they would if the same thing had happened in front of a small cinder block house on Blue Mountain Road. Fair? Nope. Reality? You betcha.

[GoodWitch58]

http://story.waltonsun.com/article.d....db.php?a=1726

This is about the person who was arrested--five deputies!

[Smiling JOe]

JB, did you actually read the FL Supreme Case decision of Tona-Rama, which is within the link above? I'm no lawyer, but this particular Court ruling sounds as if this has already been hashed out and that the public has had a long standing use for more than twenty years, so I think the Sheriff and "private beach owners" need to have their attorneys do a little research prior to calling the cops. It reads as though each case will be case by case, but that all future decisions will have a clear direction on the ruling, depending on the extended use of the beach by the public. To my knowledge, last year was the first time we saw a sign go up on the beach regarding it's ownership. Perhaps if these "owners" begin to defend their property now, the courts will rule in their favor five years down the road, but as it stands right now, I don't think they would have a case, since the public has used most of the beach up until this year.


From the State Attorney General's Office:

"The Tona-Rama (FL Supreme Court) case recognizes the common law principle of "customary use" by the public of Florida's dry sand beaches. The court held that if the public's recreational use of a privately owned sandy area adjacent to the mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner. However, the owner is allowed to make any use of his property that is consistent with such public use and is not calculated to interfere with the exercise of the right of the public to enjoy the dry sandy area as a recreational adjunct of the wet sand or foreshore area, which is held by the state in trust for the people.[12]

...

While the court rejected a finding of a public easement in the property, it acknowledged the historical right of the public to use Florida's beaches:

"We recognize the propriety of protecting the public interest in, and right to utilization of, the beaches and oceans of the State of Florida. No part of Florida is more exclusively hers, nor more properly utilized by her people than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of, Florida's oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court."[14]

The court recognized the "customary rights doctrine" or "customary right of use doctrine" as it is employed to afford the public full use of beach property in Florida:

"If the recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner. However, the owner may make any use of his property which is consistent with such public use and not calculated to interfere with exercise of the right of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recreational adjunct of the wet sand or foreshore area."

This right of customary use of the dry sand area of the beaches by the public does not create any interest in the land itself. Although this right of use cannot be revoked by the land owner, it is subject to appropriate governmental regulation and may be abandoned by the public.[15]

The court concluded:

"The general public may continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities, not because the public has any interest in the land itself, but because of a right gained through custom to use this particular area of the beach as they have without dispute and without interruption for many years."[16]

In any particular case, however, whether this "customary right of use" exists in a particular piece of property is a mixed question of law and fact that must be resolved judicially. As the Fifth District Court of Appeal recently recognized in the case of Reynolds v. County of Volusia,[17] "[t]hat doctrine requires the courts to ascertain in each case the degree of customary and ancient use the beach has been subjected to and, in addition, to balance whether the proposed use of the land by the fee owners will interfere with such use enjoyed by the public in the past."[18]

The right of a municipality to regulate and control dry sand beach property within its municipal boundaries is not dependent on the finding of the Florida Supreme Court in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc. However, that case establishes the "customary use" doctrine in Florida, which may be relied on and would provide direction in cases involving private property rights and trespass.

[Bobby J]

This is such BULL S*&%! WE are working on this issue. Folks get involved. Don't just get pissed. They will win if we do not get people calling the county and complaining. It moves slow but we should win in the long run but need as many people as possible getting involved.

[Uncle Timmy]

This incident makes me want to bring about 400 of my closest friends and set up on the beach in front of the property where this took place.

Count me in.

A similar situation occured a few days ago at the Retreat when homeowners forced a family to move 5', (yes 5 feet!) because they had 'encroached' on the Retreat beach.

EVERYBODY at the party I was at on Sunday was talking about this because several of them witnessed the event.

Everbody was pissed and ready to protest.

It is ridiculous that some Retreat homeowners have nothing better to do in their multi-million dollar beachfront homes but leer down on beachgoers.

Is this why you bought into this area? Pleeeeeeeeeeease, get a life!

A well managed protest in front of the offending resident would probably make a very strong point, since apparently -these folks are strung way too tight and would be horrified at the uncalculated consequences of their actions.

[GoodWitch58]

Bobby, are we getting organized as we did for the traffic signals? We need an organized effort...let me know exactly what needs to be done.

[Hop]

Count me in.

A similar situation occured a few days ago at the Retreat when homeowners forced a family to move 5', (yes 5 feet!) because they had 'encroached' on the Retreat beach.

EVERYBODY at the party I was at on Sunday was talking about this because several of them witnessed the event.

Everbody was pissed and ready to protest.

It is ridiculous that some Retreat homeowners have nothing better to do in their multi-million dollar beachfront homes but leer down on beachgoers.

Is this why you bought into this area? Pleeeeeeeeeeease, get a life!

A well managed protest in front of the offending resident would probably make a very strong point, since apparently -these folks are strung way too tight and would be horrified at the uncalculated consequences of their actions.

sounds like funn!

[NoHall]

sounds like funn!

Can we ALL wear Speedos? That'll learn 'em!

[Hop]

Can we ALL wear Speedos? That'll learn 'em!

SoWal thongs...

[jay]

Do you know if this was in the paper today?

[rocket136]

Sounds like you're gonna have som fun here... Too bad we're leaving tommorrow

[ShallowsNole]

[Uncle Timmy]

SoWal thongs...

"Hey, Retreat Homeowners- you will relax and share the beach or you will be forced to look at pasty white, hairy buttocks ..............the choice is yours; relent or we will pull out the OMBs!"

[SHELLY]

With the county commissioners wringing their hands over how to cut taxes in the county, I suggest they start by cutting out the 5-person SWAT teams they use to remove peaceful citizens trying to enjoy a day at the beach.


.

[scooterbug44]

I love it - a parade of Sowal thongs in front of their "private beach"! No law about folks wearing a swimsuit and walking down the beach on wet sand! Keep the OMBs hidden so they can't get you for indecent exposure!

[JB]

JB, did you actually read the FL Supreme Case decision of Tona-Rama, which is within the link above?

No, SJ, I didn't. I was simply going by the "mean high water mark" rule that you or someone else posted in the other thread.

You are obviously looking for an argument, so I'll leave you and the other "too much free-timers" to your own devices.

What's ironic is, I actually agree that the law, regardless of how murky the language, is ridiculous.

Carry on.

[Smiling JOe]

I love it - a parade of Sowal thongs in front of their "private beach"! No law about folks wearing a swimsuit and walking down the beach on wet sand! Keep the OMBs hidden so they can't get you for indecent exposure!

Want to make a wager on that? Walton County has laws regarding exposure of too much buttocks. I am still waiting for the first Sheriff's deputy to calculate the amount of exposed buttocks or breasts. I believe some Geometry and Calculus formulas will apply for measurements.

From the Walton County Code of Ordinances:

Sec. 13-28. Definitions.

Nude: Any person insufficiently clothed in any manner so that any of the following body parts are not entirely covered with a fully opaque covering:

(1) The male or female genitals, or

(2) The male or female pubic area, or

(3) The female breast (see the last sentence in this subsection), or

(4) The buttocks. Attire which is insufficient to comply with this requirement includes, but is not limited to, G-Strings, T-Backs,dental floss and thongs.

Buttocks: (For a short general description see the last sentence of this subsection.) The area at the rear of the human body (sometimes referred to as the gluteus maximus) which lies between two imaginary straight lines running parallel to the ground when a person is standing, the first or top of such line being one-half inch below the top of the vertical cleavage of the nates (i.e., the prominence formed by the muscles running from the back of the hip to the back of the leg) and the second of bottomsuch line beingone-half inch above the lowest point of the curvature of the fleshy protuberance (sometimes referred toas the gluteal fold), and between two imaginary straight lines, one on each side of the body (the "outside lines"), which outside lines are perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and which perpendicular outside lines pass through the outermost point(s) at which each meets the outer side of each leg. Notwithstanding the above, buttocks shall not include the leg, the hamstring muscle below the gluteal fold, the tensor fasciae latae muscle or any of the above-described portion of the human body that is between either (i) the left inside perpendicular line and the left outside perpendicular line or (ii) the right inside perpendicular line and the right outside perpendicular line. For the purpose of the previous sentence the left inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the left side of the anus that is perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is one-third of the distance from the anus to the left outside line, and the right inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the right side of the anus (i) that is perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is one-third of the distance from the anus to the right outside line. (The above description can generally be described as covering one-third of the buttocks centered over the cleavage for the length of thecleavage.)

()





*********

Sec. 13-31. Nudity prohibited in public places. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly appear, or cause another person to appear, nude in a public place or in any other place which is readily visible to the public, except as provided in section 13-32. It shall also be unlawful for any person or entity maintaining, owning, or operating any public place establishment to encourage, suffer or allow any person to appear nude in such public place, except as provided insection 13-32.

[Smiling JOe]

What's ironic is, I actually agree that the law, regardless of how murky the language, is ridiculous.

Carry on.

So do you agree with the FL Supreme Court's interpretation of the law in Tona-Rama, or something else? Just curious, not trying to argue the point with you.

If any of these landowners win their case, I will be erecting a blockade over the road which the County built on my deeded property.

[NoHall]

From the Walton County Code of Ordinances:

... (4) The buttocks. Attire which is insufficient to comply with this requirement includes, but is not limited to, G-Strings, T-Backs,dental floss and thongs.

It doesn't really say dental floss, does it?!?!?!?

And per that definition, I'm no longer certain as to the location of my

[JB]

So do you agree with the FL Supreme Court's interpretation of the law in Tona-Rama, or something else? Just curious, not trying to argue the point with you.

If any of these landowners win their case, I will be erecting a blockade over the road which the County built on my deeded property.

I agree that any law forbiding anyone to use any section of the beach they want is bogus and wrong. If you saw my posts in the other thread, this should be clear to all.

I don't own gulf front property, so how could I possibly agree with anyone who wants to keep folks off the beach?

[Smiling JOe]

It doesn't really say dental floss, does it?!?!?!?

And per that definition, I'm no longer certain as to the location of my

Oh yes it does say "dental floss." I am confused about my buttocks, too, with all of the talk about clevage.

[Mango]

Buttocks: (For a short general description see the last sentence of this subsection.) The area at the rear of the human body (sometimes referred to as the gluteus maximus) which lies between two imaginary straight lines running parallel to the ground when a person is standing, the first or top of such line being one-half inch below the top of the vertical cleavage of the nates (i.e., the prominence formed by the muscles running from the back of the hip to the back of the leg) and the second of bottomsuch line beingone-half inch above the lowest point of the curvature of the fleshy protuberance (sometimes referred toas the gluteal fold), and between two imaginary straight lines, one on each side of the body (the "outside lines"), which outside lines are perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and which perpendicular outside lines pass through the outermost point(s) at which each meets the outer side of each leg. Notwithstanding the above, buttocks shall not include the leg, the hamstring muscle below the gluteal fold, the tensor fasciae latae muscle or any of the above-described portion of the human body that is between either (i) the left inside perpendicular line and the left outside perpendicular line or (ii) the right inside perpendicular line and the right outside perpendicular line. For the purpose of the previous sentence the left inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the left side of the anus that is perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is one-third of the distance from the anus to the left outside line, and the right inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the right side of the anus (i) that is perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is one-third of the distance from the anus to the right outside line. (The above description can generally be described as covering one-third of the buttocks centered over the cleavage for the length of thecleavage.)

()

Lordy, are they sending Swat "survey" teams out now with micrometers, protrators, and occilloscopes?

[Uncle Timmy]

Want to make a wager on that? Walton County has laws regarding exposure of too much buttocks.

Surely they aren't enforcing this............or every plumber in the county would be locked up.

[Mango]

All offenders will become buried in the sand except for butt, which will be used as bike racks.

[DD]

[NoHall]

Lordy, are they sending Swat "survey" teams out now with micrometers, protrators, and occilloscopes?

Surely they aren't enforcing this............or every plumber in the county would be locked up.

Hey S.J. call me I'll bring the post hole diggers and the new manly mich ultra!

All offenders will become buried in the sand except for butt, which will be used as bike racks.

Stop it... I can't breathe...

[beachmouse]

The Walton sheriff's deputy we used to hang out with claimed that there was an actual template for what consitituted proper butt coverage for bathing suits that was in all their rules and regulations paperwork.