Another Warrantless Aircraft Search ( Iowa)

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
This is really just outrageous. :mad:

First John and Marth King get taken out of their 172 at Gunpoint
Then Ted gets the aviation version of a colonoscopy in Kansas
Then The Glider Pilot in Darlington is instructed to land by the local sheriff and given greif for a ficticious no fly zone violation: and,
now this guy from NY and his friend get "ramp checked not once but twice in four days, with an incredibly invasive warrantless search.

Please Please Please keep this out of SZ. If it drifts we will move it.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130516pilot-detained-searched-for-mysterious-reasons.html?WT.mc_id=130517epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan
 
When they no knocked the white trash house across town and shot their little dogs I didn't complain because I'm not white trash from that side of town. Besides I don't own a dog. A couple of pilots get the 'new america'(it ain't that new) treatment and you expect the world to care? Oh by the way you are getting audited by the IRS. Thanks for playing.
 
So, what if they just politely say, no thank you to a warrant less search?

I don't have to allow a search of my plane anymore than I do of my car, right?

-Dan
 
dweyant said:
So, what if they just politely say, no thank you to a warrant less search?

I don't have to allow a search of my plane anymore than I do of my car, right?

-Dan
Click to expand...

An aircraft is a vehicle, and as such, the police do not need a warrant to search. They need either consent or probable cause, which they said they had.

Had the police found something, that probable cause determination could have been challenged and the evidence excluded if appropriate PC was not present.
 
dweyant said:
So, what if they just politely say, no thank you to a warrant less search?

I don't have to allow a search of my plane anymore than I do of my car, right?
Click to expand...

There's a video where an ACLU attorney recommends that people say "I do not consent to any searches." However, he did not say that you can stop them if they decide to search anyway.

For aircraft, there is a regulation that says the FAA can inspect it, but that doesn't involve searching your luggage.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
There's a video where an ACLU attorney recommends that people say "I do not consent to any searches." However, he did not say that you can stop them if they decide to search anyway.
Click to expand...

Trying to physically stop them is a great way to go to jail on charges you won't beat.

The roadside or ramp is not a courtroom, give or deny the concent and see what happens
 
"Silverstein was asked to confess to possession of a small amount of marijuana, and the matter would be cut short". Right. Like THAT wouldn't raise an eyebrow on his next medical.
 
Based on the facial hair, this was probably a case of harassment due to "mistaken identity". I'll leave it at that, in compliance with your request to keep this out of the SZ:rolleyes:.
 
AdamZ said:
This is really just outrageous. :mad:

First John and Marth King get taken out of their 172 at Gunpoint
Then Ted gets the aviation version of a colonoscopy in Kansas
Then The Glider Pilot in Darlington is instructed to land by the local sheriff and given greif for a ficticious no fly zone violation: and,
now this guy from NY and his friend get "ramp checked not once but twice in four days, with an incredibly invasive warrantless search.

Please Please Please keep this out of SZ. If it drifts we will move it.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130516pilot-detained-searched-for-mysterious-reasons.html?WT.mc_id=130517epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan
Click to expand...

Inasmuch as the story concerns the Stasi... unable.

-Rich
 
redtail said:
Based on the facial hair, this was probably a case of harassment due to "mistaken identity". I'll leave it at that, in compliance with your request to keep this out of the SZ:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

The last time I was at KIOW, there wasn't nearly enough activity there to warrant a group of Border Patrol agents sitting there to do 'random' checks. I'm guessing this guy is on a 'list' just like Ted found himself on. Wasn't Ted doing a Cali - New England trip when he got stopped as well?
 
Sounds kinda like he was set up in order to meet some sort of quota, or just to make somebody appear to be worthy of their salary. It also wouldn't surprise me if the beard, the hat, maybe, and the fact that he's gay were factors in deciding to give him "the business".
 
They found nothing in the plane, because he was hiding all the contraband in his beard.

Rich, you're next on their list!
 
Skylane81E said:
Trying to physically stop them is a great way to go to jail on charges you won't beat.

The roadside or ramp is not a courtroom, give or deny the concent and see what happens
Click to expand...

If you give consent, then regardless of whether they had PC, the courts will not interfere after that point. Politely state "I do not give consent." If they search anyway, don't interfere, but at least you've preserved the issue of probable cause for later adjudication if necessary.
 
rottydaddy said:
Sounds kinda like he was set up in order to meet some sort of quota, or just to make somebody appear to be worthy of their salary. It also wouldn't surprise me if the beard, the hat, maybe, and the fact that he's gay were factors in deciding to give him "the business".
Click to expand...

I think more and more law enforcement agencies are being incentivized to rack up arrest numbers for Fed funding. To justify larger, and larger budgets Fed, State, and Local law enforcement who ALL receive Fed funding must show stats to justify the money.

The fact that they falsely wanted him to plead to a small marijuana charge tells me all I need to know.

Didn't Dr. Bruce have evidence of Customs planting something in his plane at one time, or am I remembering that wrong?
 
rottydaddy said:
Sounds kinda like he was set up in order to meet some sort of quota, or just to make somebody appear to be worthy of their salary. It also wouldn't surprise me if the beard, the hat, maybe, and the fact that he's gay were factors in deciding to give him "the business".
Click to expand...

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

The story does seem like there is a critical fact being left out, but from the information given, I see no reason to suspect anything beyond an assumption that a database is free from errors, and excessive deference to authority (i.e., "we're only following orders").

The thing about marijuana suggests they think he was smuggling for some reason. I don't buy that every airplane flying out of Colorado is suspect. There is some other reason we're not being told.
 
It sounds somewhat similar to mine overall. I think the major difference was that I didn't get as fired up about it as this guy obviously did. They also didn't bring out a dog (which would have been funny in some ways).

The biggest similarity in my mind was the long trips being performed. I was flying the Aztec cross-country in those days more than once, and had several diversions in that time period. Fact is most people who own piston airplanes don't routinely do coast-to-coast trips. Couple that with one of my points of landing being a place that had several drug busts already (that's where they searched me).

Problem is, everyone's happy when they catch someone and nobody asks whether there was a warrant, etc. That means that some of us law abiding citizens will have what amounts to a pretty small level of harassment now and then when our legal activities fit a profile. In 6 years and 2,000 hours of flying, the only delays in the US I've had were customs (expected) and this one search. In the same time period, I've had much worse luck with commercial.

I'll take GA.
 
Palmpilot said:
There's a video where an ACLU attorney recommends that people say "I do not consent to any searches." However, he did not say that you can stop them if they decide to search anyway.

For aircraft, there is a regulation that says the FAA can inspect it, but that doesn't involve searching your luggage.
Click to expand...

Thats good advice. Regardless of how unlawful the search or unlawful the arrest one does not have the right to physically interfer with law enforcment and they should not.

redtail said:
Based on the facial hair, this was probably a case of harassment due to "mistaken identity". I'll leave it at that, in compliance with your request to keep this out of the SZ:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

I could not figure out if he was an orthodox Jewish person or a follower of Ja prehpas he's Rastasidic.

JeffDG said:
If you give consent, then regardless of whether they had PC, the courts will not interfere after that point. Politely state "I do not give consent." If they search anyway, don't interfere, but at least you've preserved the issue of probable cause for later adjudication if necessary.
Click to expand...

It depends. There have been searches based on consent tossed where the encounter is deemed concluded and then the office comes back.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Problem is, everyone's happy when they catch someone and nobody asks whether there was a warrant, etc. That means that some of us law abiding citizens will have what amounts to a pretty small level of harassment now and then when our legal activities fit a profile.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what lawyers are for, but it does put the onus on us, and also puts the financial burden on us to fight illegal searches, and other illegal acts that these agencies commit.
 
Paging Tom Haines - this is what I was telling you about on the phone......now's the chance.
 
CJones said:
The last time I was at KIOW, there wasn't nearly enough activity there to warrant a group of Border Patrol agents sitting there to do 'random' checks. I'm guessing this guy is on a 'list' just like Ted found himself on. Wasn't Ted doing a Cali - New England trip when he got stopped as well?
Click to expand...

Cali is in Colombia. I doubt if he was going that far.
 
I had to google his name just to see if it was a fake beard. :D It isn't.;)
 
AdamZ said:
[URL="http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130516pilot-detained-searched-for-mysterious-reasons.html?WT.mc_id=130517epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan"]http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130516pilot-detained-searched-for-mysterious-reasons.html?WT.mc_id=130517epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan[/URL]
Click to expand...

As I sit here reading this article I have the TV playing with C SPAN showing the congressional hearing on the IRS non profit fiasco....

All I can say is........................... the Greatest Country in the World is no more...:no::nonod::sad::sad::sad:
 
CJones said:
The last time I was at KIOW, there wasn't nearly enough activity there to warrant a group of Border Patrol agents sitting there to do 'random' checks. I'm guessing this guy is on a 'list' just like Ted found himself on. Wasn't Ted doing a Cali - New England trip when he got stopped as well?
Click to expand...

It was Arizona to Iowa, with the eventual goal of back to Pennsylvania. The month prior I had done a California to NYC trip with 47 Chihuahuas, and I also had several diversions for weather in the previous few months.

A year or two prior to my search, a 310R with a Colemill Bearcat conversion was caught on a run from CA to NJ with something like 150 kilos of the white stuff. The owner was an A&P for Continental Airlines.
 
N801BH said:
As I sit here reading this article I have the TV playing with C SPAN showing the congressional hearing on the IRS non profit fiasco....

All I can say is........................... the Greatest Country in the World is no more...:no::nonod::sad::sad::sad:
Click to expand...

Well, as someone who got 501(c)3 status (the organizations in question were going for 501(c)4, which allows them to anonymize donations but provides no tax deduction to donors), the process of getting tax exempt status requires a lot of paperwork, and the biggest holdup is filling it out properly. I got it done in 4 months, and everyone else I've talked to can't believe it was that fast - most of them report several years. The IRS has added scrutiny because many folks abused the system.

Not saying they didn't make it worse on the conservative groups, but it aint a cakewalk.
 
I'm wondering if anyone has collected data on what percentage of drug dog alerts are false positives.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, as someone who got 501(c)3 status (the organizations in question were going for 501(c)4, which allows them to anonymize donations but provides no tax deduction to donors), the process of getting tax exempt status requires a lot of paperwork, and the biggest holdup is filling it out properly. I got it done in 4 months, and everyone else I've talked to can't believe it was that fast - most of them report several years. The IRS has added scrutiny because many folks abused the system.
Click to expand...

Our group got it in a matter of months. They have people to assist in the process, and they can be quite helpful if allowed to dose.
 
steingar said:
Our group got it in a matter of months. They have people to assist in the process, and they can be quite helpful if allowed to dose.
Click to expand...

I enlisted the help of such a person as well. Most of the folks I talk to do it themselves, and I don't know which category these groups fell in to. I have heard that any politically oriented group gets extra scrutiny vs normal charities.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm wondering if anyone has collected data on what percentage of drug dog alerts are false positives.
Click to expand...

100%. The handler can make the dog do anything he wants. It's all interpretive, and the handler can interpret the actions of the dog anyway he wants.

All dog drug 'busts' are fake.
 
docmirror said:
100%. The handler can make the dog do anything he wants. It's all interpretive, and the handler can interpret the actions of the dog anyway he wants.

All dog drug 'busts' are fake.
Click to expand...

I think the question was more along the lines of how many times has the dog been alerted, and how many of those times was nothing found.
 
docmirror said:
100%. The handler can make the dog do anything he wants. It's all interpretive, and the handler can interpret the actions of the dog anyway he wants.

All dog drug 'busts' are fake.
Click to expand...

I suspect this is the case. Dogs are inordinately sensitive animals, and will do their utmost to please their owners or handlers. I'll bet money that the dogs respond to subtle cues in their handler's behavior more than the smells originating from suspect vehicles.
 
steingar said:
I suspect this is the case. Dogs are inordinately sensitive animals, and will do their utmost to please their owners or handlers. I'll bet money that the dogs respond to subtle cues in their handler's behavior more than the smells originating from suspect vehicles.
Click to expand...

Heard this from a K-9 officer as well.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, as someone who got 501(c)3 status (the organizations in question were going for 501(c)4, which allows them to anonymize donations but provides no tax deduction to donors), the process of getting tax exempt status requires a lot of paperwork, and the biggest holdup is filling it out properly. I got it done in 4 months, and everyone else I've talked to can't believe it was that fast - most of them report several years. The IRS has added scrutiny because many folks abused the system.

Not saying they didn't make it worse on the conservative groups, but it aint a cakewalk.
Click to expand...

Get professional help. It only took us that long to get 501(c)(3) in that our original Articles of Incorporation/Bylaws weren't written right, so it took a few months to get these changed and approved by the state. After that the IRS was a piece of cake.

If we had a lawyer draft the articles/bylaws with the intent of being a 501(c)(3) from the git go, it would have been a non-event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top