California Surveyors Forums

Had been called out there to check for tampering, turned the angle and distance down to the toe of the canyon slope to my pipe. Yep, that neighbor is a sly guy. He chose to move it only 0.50 feet to his advantage; maybe moving it a foot or two would be too obvious to my client. He must have put in a lot of labor in the dark; I had concreted the pipe in pretty good after my owner had let me know about the situation.

My client was happy to pay me for the extra work. I told him this was the one and only time I will come out or accept any further payments from him, that he needs to solve the problem with his neighbor, restraining order, make peace, mediation,etc. My owner is asking about any violation.

Guys, I am not seeing the misdemeanor in the government or civil code for tampering or removal. Who knows where that is ? Thanks again everyone !

Look in the Criminal Code.

California Penal Code Section 605

605. Every person who either:
1. Maliciously removes any monument erected for the purpose of
designating any point in the boundary of any lot or tract of land, or
a place where a subaqueous telegraph cable lies; or,
2. Maliciously defaces or alters the marks upon any such monument;
or,
3. Maliciously cuts down or removes any tree upon which any such
marks have been made for such purpose, with intent to destroy such
marks;
--Is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Maybe you need to install one of those auto cameras for tracking wild game for a little supporting photo evidence.

LA Stevens wrote:California Penal Code Section 605

605. Every person who either:
1. Maliciously removes any monument erected for the purpose of
designating any point in the boundary of any lot or tract of land, or
a place where a subaqueous telegraph cable lies; or,
2. Maliciously defaces or alters the marks upon any such monument;
or,
3. Maliciously cuts down or removes any tree upon which any such
marks have been made for such purpose, with intent to destroy such
marks;
--Is guilty of a misdemeanor.

I knew one of you could find it.

I haven't delved into Ca codes in so long, I didn't even look for this one.

Thanks everyone !

Owner is asking what agency enforces this state code so he can file a complaint.

Any help would be appreciated.

For a complaint of violation of the Penal Code not involving a licensee, the County DA is who is supposed to take the complaint and enforce the law. Depending upon which county and DA's resources, they may or may not agree to prosecute the case.

When local law enforcement and/or the DA don't want to deal with vandalism to survey monuments, they will often try to send you on your way saying that it's a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

Specifying in the complaint that it is a violation of "Penal Code Section 605" should take the air out of any statements they might be inclined to make about it being a civil matter.


If the person moving the iron is a licensee, then a complaint to BPELSG in addition to the criminal complaint would be in order.

Although BPELSG has no authority over unlicensed individuals, I seem to recall a case that Mike Pallamary was involved in where a neighbor (not a licensee) was moving monuments in which BPELSG worked with the local DA to press charges.

Maybe Mike and/or Ric can shed some light on that.

The city attorney is supposed to enforce misdemeanors locally and at the county level, the district attorney. Unfortunately, here in San Diego, neither the city attorney or the district attorney considers the destruction of survey monuments important and in spite of numerous well documented complaints, neither agency will do anything. In order to arrest the destruction of survey monuments by city staff I had to get the Grand Jury to do something. Good luck!

FYI

https://www.municode.com/webcontent/sta ... ets/CA.pdf

As an example:

http://www.vcdistrictattorney.com/servi ... secutions/

Anybody ever read Steinbeck's "Tortilla Flat"?

Although BPELSG has no authority over unlicensed individuals,

Actually Evan is kind of incorrect with this statement. BPELSG does have authority over unlicensed individuals within the confines of the PLS Act, PE Act, Geologists Act, and associated Regulations related to those laws.

If a complaint was filed, BPELSG could investigate and if found to be a violation of a law, BPELSG can act on that.

Here is where Evan / Mike are correct:

If the violation relates to "maliciously removing or destroying a monument" as that action relates to Penal Code section 605, all BPELSG can do is recommend to the local district attorney (or city attorney) to prosecute. BPELSG does not have the authority to issue a citation for the Penal Code.

However, something that desert tortoise (and his client should consider)...kind of food for thought in this case...

BPELSG would have authority over an unlicensed individual (neighbor?) moving a monument to another location, thereby demonstrating an action of establishing, re-establishing, or determining the position of a monument and representing that as the location of property line or boundary. That action is reserved for those individuals that are authorized by BPELSG to practice land surveying. The most important aspect of this would be to gather actual evidence to support what occurred and file a complaint. It is very difficult to prove unless your evidence supports it.

In other words, don't focus on the removal, focus on what the individual's actions represent.

Thanks for pointing that one out Ric. I had a situation where Ric and the Board assisted me in one of my cases wherein a Certified Public Accountant (Yes, you heard right) was photographed moving my markers around and making his own ones. We have him on film drilling holes in the sidewalk and setting lead plugs with brass nails, and then painting them orange and moving my discs around. After he was done, he called out city inspectors and he showed them the markers and my survey and the city approved his building location based on his representation. He had moved them 2 to 3 feet towards and into my client's property. I filed a multitude of complaints with the city attorney, the building department, and the elected officials and they did nothing. Thanks to Ric's involvement, the Board cited this guy. What was depressing is I contacted the Accountancy board with a complaint a couple of times and they said they did not care! I told them repeatedly that this guys was entrusted with watching people's money and this spoke to his character. They did not care. My clients and I wanted this guy prosecuted for a misdemeanor as he admitted, in deposition, that he had done this before!

Check out my ROS comments about the city inspector. Nothing was done there......

Some interesting reading contained within the attached files, but I can see this going down hill in a hurry if the parties identinfied therein or their supporters, start weighing in on this forum. Perhaps some names should have been changed to protect the not so innocent?

Hi Mark,

If you are referring to my public record survey and filed court action (public record) and the Board's actions (public record), can you clarify what "going down hill in a hurry" means?

Thanks!

That is quite a note! Thank you for sharing it... Your professional handling of an apparently delicate and frustrating situation was remarkable and I would consider it a positive example to follow.

Thanks David,

If I may, the problem with our profession is timidity, lack of confidence, and an unwillingness to do the right thing. There I said it. As you can well imagine, what you are seeing is the tip of a huge iceberg wherein every conceivable alternative was exhausted. I will be discussing this matter and the actions I took in an upcoming program. Throughout, I maintained close coordination with the State Board, the city and the lawyers. My goal in responding is to provide a foundation for others to decide what to do. We should all do that.

I saw something wrong and I responded to it. To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

Title 16, California Code of Regulations

476. Code of Professional Conduct – Professional Land Surveying
(c) Representations:

(10) A licensee shall not falsely or maliciously (emphasis added) injure or attempt to injure the reputation or business of others.

Mr. Pallamary,

I don't disagree with how you handled the situation you described, and your work appears to be very thorough and professional. I just feel uncomfortable with identifying the other land surveyor involved without his knowledge and/or permission.

A public record is just that, public, and your detailed reporting of the circumstances you encountered were necesssary. However, you are not required to post the resulting public documents on this forum for the surveying community and other interested parties to view. Revealing the name of the LS involved is by choice, and regardless of the current forum posting rules that are in effect, could arguably be in violation of the code I listed above.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I'm certainly not the admnistrator of this forum. Just calling it as I see it.

Just want to know "were you malicious" toward this other guy? did you write all that stuff with "ill will"?

I guess if you did this stuff without malice, your okay, but if not, shame on you. ;).......................

"When they remain silent, when they should protest, makes cowards of men." TJ (same guy)

Mr. Hall,

I never meant to imply that anything that Mr Pallamary wrote in his reports was malicious. I assume you are aware of that. But, the question remains:

Was it necessary to identify (on this forum) the other LS involved, in order to get the full benefit/meaning/significance/etc. of Mr. Pallamary's posting?

Additonal food for thought concerning a couple of recent quotes from this thread:

"When they remain silent, when they should protest, makes cowards of men."

"I saw something wrong and I responded to it".

I couldn't agree more.

Thanks Bruce. Actually the other guy was intimately involved and saw everything. Bottom line and here's the deal. I documented all activities relevant to my work. None of it was made up and in my opinion, all of it was relevant. As to the notation regarding the city inspector, I raised that concern numerous times with the city attorney - to no avail. As to the other surveyor, I raised my concerns - to no avail. This was a litigated matter and at the outset I told everyone what I was doing and what I had to do. To the best of my ability, I documented everything. That is my job. The court can do with it what it wants and needs to do. If anyone thinks it should have been done differently, let me know.

Hi, I appreciate your comments. I did the best I could here and hopefully it won't happen again. That is my goal.

7702 wrote:Mr. Hall,

I never meant to imply that anything that Mr Pallamary wrote in his reports was malicious. I assume you are aware of that. But, the question remains:

Was it necessary to identify (on this forum) the other LS involved, in order to get the full benefit/meaning/significance/etc. of Mr. Pallamary's posting?

Additonal food for thought concerning a couple of recent quotes from this thread:

"When they remain silent, when they should protest, makes cowards of men."

"I saw something wrong and I responded to it".

I couldn't agree more.

Ric7308 wrote:Actually Evan is kind of incorrect with this statement. ...

My statement there was a little imprecise. If they are offering services w/o a license, then BPELSG has some authority. They can assess a fine and have telephone and website (? - I think. not certain) disconnected. If the cited unlicensed person ignores the fine, BPELSG doesn't have any other arrows in its quiver though. They need to get the DA involved.

Ric7308 wrote:Here is where Evan / Mike are correct:

If the violation relates to "maliciously removing or destroying a monument" as that action relates to Penal Code section 605, all BPELSG can do is recommend to the local district attorney (or city attorney) to prosecute. BPELSG does not have the authority to issue a citation for the Penal Code.

Yeah. That's what I said! Isn't it???

Ric7308 wrote:However, something that desert tortoise (and his client should consider)...kind of food for thought in this case...

BPELSG would have authority over an unlicensed individual (neighbor?) moving a monument to another location, thereby demonstrating an action of establishing, re-establishing, or determining the position of a monument and representing that as the location of property line or boundary. That action is reserved for those individuals that are authorized by BPELSG to practice land surveying. The most important aspect of this would be to gather actual evidence to support what occurred and file a complaint. It is very difficult to prove unless your evidence supports it.

In other words, don't focus on the removal, focus on what the individual's actions represent.

The thing about authority is that it's useless unless you have some means of enforcing it. With licensees, BPELSG has the ability to suspend or revoke a license, and thus a person's legal authority to earn a living as a professional land surveyor (one could still get a job as a survey tech if anyone would hire them). That's normally enough to get most licensees to pay the fine and comply with the law.

Many of us can relate stories of unlicensed people who offer surveying services and do so with impunity. Unless one is able to provide BPELSG with tangible evidence - advertising, a copy of a contract, copies of maps, covertly made video/audio of a meeting with a client, etc., it is pretty difficult to have these people run out of business. Often they get a warning, and perhaps a nominal fine only to come back with a retired pre-82 CE at their disposal to stamp and sign maps for a nominal fee.

Aside from cutting phone service, BPELSG has little means of asserting their authority over unlicensed practitioners at their disposal. If the unlicensed practitioner doesn't cease, and is able to somehow maintain some mode of communication (use the wife's or girlfriend's phone maybe) and thumbs their nose at BPELSG, then BPELSG must depend on the DA to pursue the matter. If the DA deems it too small a matter, BPELSG got nuttin'.


Ric, you may think you have authority over the dirtbag who moves monuments in an attempt to steal some of his neighbor's land, but how can BPELSG assert that authority in the form of effective action if the dirtbag tells you to pound sand? Does BPELSG have any recourse other than going to the DA? It would be good if you do, but if you do, I'm not aware of it. Enlighten us please.

That's the one I was thinking of. I guess that the last I had heard of the case, you were working with BPELSG and it looked as if the guy was going to have some actual consequences.

BPELSG got involved, agreed that Mr. Dirtbag was moving monuments, moved to get the DA involved and.... nuttin'.

I guess that very obvious example of someone caught red-handed and having no real consequences illustrates the point in my last post.


That was a great narrative Mike. You didn't pull any punches when pointing out the malfeasance of the neighbor and the non-feasance of the other surveyor and the inspector.