Change in logbook carrying interpretation?

Skylane81E said:
So you go after the department for "failure to train"
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Failure to train is more about deliberate indifference to train, not a good faith mistake or misunderstanding about interpretation of something like FARs. Here, they did train, somewhere along the line the FARs were just misinterpreted.

Some of the civil rights zealots on this board really sound like they live in a fantasy world... lay interpretation of law and strong positions for your rights makes for good internet banter, but bad real-world outcomes.
 
Nope, ask CPD about its issues with failing to train....

However Ohio and california are not the same place!
 
Skylane81E said:
Nope, ask CPD about its issues with failing to train....

However Ohio and california are not the same place!
Click to expand...

Perhaps not... if you're talking about 1983 actions though they're federal actions, not based on state law. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure PDs spend a lot of time training the whats/whys/hows of stop 'n frisks, but that's far from a bright line guideline that would be enforceable in the court. With enough out of work attorneys it also wouldn't surprise me that many frivolous 1983 actions are brought. All of that said, I'll still give odds that you're more likely to enjoy a fun ride on your unicorn than get $1 from a LEO detaining you because you don't have a logbook and were seen flying an airplane.
 
My view is colored by being around law enforcement for many years...

First, the officer has a huge amount of discretion out in the street and the Courts routinely defer to that discretion...
Second, challenging a street bull that you are not subject to his authority will guarantee a showdown - he will not back down (he cannot for several reasons I will skip)

I will reiterate what has been said above - be civil - you don't have to be polite and you can be right upfront with him and you can question him on the facts, but watch your attitude...
If he insists that you must have your logbook to show him - after you have explained that it is not a document the FAA requires you to carry in the plane - then suggest this can be solved by an exchange of letters between his superiors, the FAA legal department, and your attorney - and if it is proven later that you are wrong then he can issue a citation at that time...
The whole point here is to give him a face saving out for not issuing a citation - which will then cost you money to fight (no skin off his nose)

Now, if you have managed to **** him off, plan on being there for hours - detained as it were... You see, he is being paid for every minute he is there (and all overtime)... And while you are detained and he is sitting in a comfortable police cruiser watching the screen, he is not having to be out in the street wrestling with some puking drunks who got into a fight... Given those choices, guess where he would prefer to be...

And for the delusional who believe that they will get the gold ring for being detained and the court later finds them not guilty - how much money did Casey Anthony, or Robert Blake, or a host of others get?
ZERO....
 
Dr. O said:
My view is colored by being around law enforcement for many years...

First, the officer has a huge amount of discretion out in the street and the Courts routinely defer to that discretion...
Second, challenging a street bull that you are not subject to his authority will guarantee a showdown - he will not back down (he cannot for several reasons I will skip)

I will reiterate what has been said above - be civil - you don't have to be polite and you can be right upfront with him and you can question him on the facts, but watch your attitude...
If he insists that you must have your logbook to show him - after you have explained that it is not a document the FAA requires you to carry in the plane - then suggest this can be solved by an exchange of letters between his superiors, the FAA legal department, and your attorney - and if it is proven later that you are wrong then he can issue a citation at that time...
The whole point here is to give him a face saving out for not issuing a citation - which will then cost you money to fight (no skin off his nose)

Now, if you have managed to **** him off, plan on being there for hours - detained as it were... You see, he is being paid for every minute he is there (and all overtime)... And while you are detained and he is sitting in a comfortable police cruiser watching the screen, he is not having to be out in the street wrestling with some puking drunks who got into a fight... Given those choices, guess where he would prefer to be...

And for the delusional who believe that they will get the gold ring for being detained and the court later finds them not guilty - how much money did Casey Anthony, or Robert Blake, or a host of others get?
ZERO....
Click to expand...

This is why you comply, go quietly, etc. Make a scene and you only hurt yourself. We also both know that if you don't make a scene you won't be getting arrested for not having your logbook. Hell even if you do it won't be the lack of a logbook that gets you hauled off, but hypothetically...

I'm not talking about being arrested on shaky evidence, I'm talking about being arrested for a "crime" that doesnt exist, much like driving with out dying your hair blonde.

If an officer were to sign charges on me of flying without a logbook and arrest me for it...
 
Dr. O said:
My view is colored by being around law enforcement for many years...
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your post.

But being arrested and charged, with probable cause determinations along the way, with a substantive offense like murder that actually exists, like Blake and Anthony and ultimately being found not guilty, is a wee bit different from being arrested (or detained for a substantial enough time that it is in effect an arrest) for a crime that doesn't exist, like wearing a blue shirt on Tuesday.

Hopefully, I have not become completely delusional in the 20 or so years since I stopped practicing criminal law (which I practiced for about 17).

Now, can the arresting officer conceivably come up with some kind of BS charge that has nothing to do with the logbook to justify the hold? Sure. Police beating up someone and claiming the prisoner assaulted them is a time-honored tradition for some officers in some cities. And that's one of the (many) reasons to leave standing up for one's rights for later in the game, and why I agree with the bulk of your post.
 
> street bull

Gawd. I haven't heard that term in years.

> The whole point here is to give him a face saving out for not issuing a citation ...

Amen. Even better if we can get these CBP and DEA docs corrected.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm pretty sure that unlawful detention is both a crime and a civil tort.
Click to expand...
Well sure. Add "unlawful" to anything and it suddenly becomes a crime. Any time a LEO is asking you questions regarding a possible crime, you are being detained. Sometimes it takes a few seconds. sometimes longer, but it doesn't normally entail an overnight stay in a jail.

If you are pulled over by a traffic cop because he thought your vehicle matched the description of a stolen car, you would present your required documents, he would verify that they match you and the vehicle you are driving, and that would be that. Even though you weren't in jail and you were probably not handcuffed, you were still legally detained while he looked at your documents. It appears that the AMOC document is just attempting to provide guidance for a similar records check for pilots - the issue here is they got some of the details wrong.

After getting a consensus of google results, it appears that ~20 minutes is normal for a "reasonable detention" to determine whether a crime has been committed. In that timeframe, a quick call to an FAA office would be all it would take to determine that you aren't required to have your logbook. The required documents could of course be requested and reviewed by the LEO, and it all ends right there. The LEO would find out that his letter contains faulty guidance. You would be on your way. And zero drama points would be awarded to anyone.

On a related note: I'm wondering if the people staffing the 866-247-2878 hotline mentioned in the AMOC document realize yet that they screwed up and could probably set the LEO straight. If I were in the States, I'd call the number myself and ask. This could all be a tempest in a teapot and the LEO mentioned in the initial post might have been working from a document that has been rescinded by now. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
There isn't any substantive difference so rigged can stop yelling out lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...
There really is. You insist on calling "reasonable detention" arrest, when it is not. An arrest will take you much farther than you want to go, keep you much longer than you want to stay, and cost you much more than you want to pay. If I am arrested, my entire career suddenly becomes a huge question mark, even if I am never charged or convicted of a crime. It becomes something that I will need to explain in detail at various points for the remainder of my life.

Politely answering a few questions about documents that the LEO believes he has every right to review only takes a few minutes, and makes virtually no substantive impact on my life, my time, or my career. I choose the reasonable approach.
 
Ron Levy said:
For your certificates, yes, but for your logbook, it says "reasonable request" (see 61.51(i)), which has been defined by the FAA Chief Counsel to mean that you must be given a reasonable opportunity to produce it. Any LEO who takes any action against you for not having your logbook in your personal possession (unless you are specifically required by law to have it with you) is operating outside the law, and if that action includes detention, your civil rights are being violated.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that the requirement to present certificates on request is in two places, 61.3 and 61.51. That creates an opportunity for discrepancies, such as the fact that 61.3 requires you to present them to a TSA representative, but 61.51 does not mention TSA.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
Politely answering a few questions about documents that the LEO believes he has every right to review only takes a few minutes, and makes virtually no substantive impact on my life, my time, or my career. I choose the reasonable approach.
Click to expand...
I agree, so I guess there was no reason to yell.
 
I agree too, right up to the point where the LEO wants to book me. And no joke - I have been booked for going around the block at 2am (I missed my turn) because they thought I was acting suspiciously...by going around the block in a nice neighborhood. Another time an alarm went off at an all night laundromat and the friend I was with was mistaken by the police for someone with a warrant. I was printed that night, too.

Stuff happens and people make mistakes. I just think some of our LEOs have a "book first ask questions later" mentality.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
There really is. You insist on calling "reasonable detention" arrest, when it is not. An arrest will take you much farther than you want to go, keep you much longer than you want to stay, and cost you much more than you want to pay. If I am arrested, my entire career suddenly becomes a huge question mark, even if I am never charged or convicted of a crime. It becomes something that I will need to explain in detail at various points for the remainder of my life.

Politely answering a few questions about documents that the LEO believes he has every right to review only takes a few minutes, and makes virtually no substantive impact on my life, my time, or my career. I choose the reasonable approach.
Click to expand...
In many states it is legal for LEO to detain for 72 hours. There is no paperwork, you cannot call a lawyer, you cannot call mommy.

I heard that it was inserted federally in the Patriot Act but I'm unable to sustain that.

I know the 72 hour rule applies where i live for LEO to ascertain your identity. Before that came out, I'd already solved that problem, but I was really concerned for those of my brethren who may run afoul of this mischievous "law".

If LEO can hold you 24, 48, 72 hours is your experience in a holding cell any different than the guy that got booked for DUI?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree, so I guess there was no reason to yell.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to offend. The bold red underlined text was to get your attention. Something that several posts previous failed to do. If you had substituted "detained" for "arrested" I wouldn't have posted at all.

Jaybird180 said:
In many states it is legal for LEO to detain for 72 hours. There is no paperwork, you cannot call a lawyer, you cannot call mommy.

I heard that it was inserted federally in the Patriot Act but I'm unable to sustain that.

I know the 72 hour rule applies where i live for LEO to ascertain your identity. Before that came out, I'd already solved that problem, but I was really concerned for those of my brethren who may run afoul of this mischievous "law".

If LEO can hold you 24, 48, 72 hours is your experience in a holding cell any different than the guy that got booked for DUI?
Click to expand...
Yes, for the reasons I already stated.

As far as detaining you in order to ascertain your identity: If a pilot provides the documents that they are legally required to possess, this question will have been settled.

I highly doubt that you will be placed in a jail cell until you can produce a logbook. Think about it... If you are in a jail cell, exactly how will you be able to hand over a logbook that is not in your possession? That would not be possible. What is possible, and even probable, is that if the LEO really wanted to see your logbook they would give you a citation and require you to produce it at a later date.

Just like if you received a ticket from a traffic cop for not having proof of drivers insurance. You tell the LEO that you left it at home. The LEO writes you a ticket. You appear in court and prove you had insurance coverage and they either send you on your way free and clear or have you pay a fine for not carrying a required document. In the case of the pilot, the document isn't actually required to be carried, so not having it when it was originally requested will be a non-issue by the time you produce it for their perusal, because you would no-doubt bring proof that it wasn't required, along with contact names/numbers of government officials that can also attest to the same.

...

I know that this being the internet and all, it's great fun to play what-if games and inflate everything for drama and ego. But outside in the real world? I just don't see it. Not without something serious being thrown in to the mix, like a pilot absolutely refusing to cooperate with a reasonable request, or becoming abusive toward the LEO, or having no form of government issued ID, or possessing illegal items, etc.

Again - has anyone actually called the AMOC hotline number to see if this is still an issue? The fax date of the original AMOC document shows April 2011. It is very possible, even probable, that all of this has been resolved and put to bed by now, and that the LEO mentioned in the first post were acting on outdated guidance that could have been corrected by a call to the hotline.
 
People in jail have to get bail money to extricate themselves. The premise is that there is someone on the outside who can get it for them. Same logic can be applied to the logbook.
 
Jaybird180 said:
People in jail have to get bail money to extricate themselves. The premise is that there is someone on the outside who can get it for them. Same logic can be applied to the logbook.
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of any pilot ever being put in jail for failing to have a logbook in their possession?
 
Rigged4Flight said:
Have you ever heard of any pilot ever being put in jail for failing to have a logbook in their possession?
Click to expand...
I have not heard of it. But judging by the ink written on the paper, I can forsee a likely scenario of a cop doing just that because a GA pilot did not have his logbook on his person. That was my only point. It doesn't mean that he's right, but there are many wrongs committed with the excuse: "I was only following orders".
 
ejensen said:
More to it than that. Read the first part of this thread. Not every pilot needs a medical. Some need a log book.
Click to expand...
Understood. The vast majority of GA pilots would need what I stated. Students need a logbook, which I didn't state, but alluded to.

Joe Average GA Pilot steps out of his plane and is greeted by a couple of LEO guys asking to see his required documents. For the average GA pilot, these will be the ones I mentioned.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
Pilot license, medical certificate and government issued ID. Unless they are a student pilot.
Click to expand...

Photo ID, not just ID. And based on 61.3, the pilot only has to have the relevant certificates in his/her physical possession (or readily available in the aircraft) while serving as a required pilot flight crewmember. (I'm sure you know this - I'm just filling in details for the lurkers.)
 
Rigged4Flight said:
Pilot license, medical certificate and government issued ID. Unless they are a student pilot.
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, not sure.

Part 103 - no Pilot Certificate required, no medical certificate required, don't know about Photo ID

Sport Pilot - No Medical certificate required if you have a valid Drivers License. Photo ID, Log book (or other documentation) is required

Private or "higher" operating under Sport Pilot rules - No Medical certificate required if you have a valid Drivers License. Photo ID is required but not a log book.

Glider Pilot - No Medical certificate required (Including self launch gliders). Photo ID is.

And therin lies the problem. The referenced documents claim that all of the above plus a log book are required for ALL pilots. So any pilot who is lacking more than one of these is likely up to something. Right?

Particulary if they are flying some little airplane with no wheel pants and grass stains, and no flight plan, and a couple other things listed that I forget. I assume that I would not be the only one to fit that profile.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Not for me. I guess I'm Joe Loser?
Click to expand...
Okay. Yes. You are Joe Loser. You have made up your mind that you are a victim. My recommendation is that you immediately run if you see LEO on the ramp.

Or you can politely provide the required documents that you do have, discuss the actual FAA regulations that cover those documents as they pertain to you and your aircraft, and offer to cooperate in any reasonable way that you can.

And please post here if you are ever arrested for failing to possess a logbook. Unless you are a student. Heck - post even if you are a student. I've never heard of a student being arrested by any LEO for not having his logbook either. You might be a first.

:popcorn:
 
Jaybird180 said:
People in jail have to get bail money to extricate themselves. The premise is that there is someone on the outside who can get it for them. Same logic can be applied to the logbook.
Click to expand...
Those people have been arrested, formally charged, and arraigned. COMPLETELY different than being detained for something that doesn't carry a criminal penalty.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I have not heard of it. But judging by the ink written on the paper, I can forsee a likely scenario of a cop doing just that because a GA pilot did not have his logbook on his person. That was my only point. It doesn't mean that he's right, but there are many wrongs committed with the excuse: "I was only following orders".
Click to expand...

Cops don't put people in jail. They put people in a holding cell, and after they've been charged and arraigned they may be remanded to jail to await trial.

Cops put people in handcuffs. Judges put people in jail. Neither is pleasant, but the difference is important.
 
I don't even want any LEO putting hands on me, so in that regard it makes no difference. Yes,I get that it's an escalation, but you're simply nit-picking to avoid the issue.
 
This is one of those thread that seems to follow the old adage that, the less one knows about a subject, the more inclined she or she is to yell about his or her position.
 
midlifeflyer said:
This is one of those thread that seems to follow the old adage that, the less one knows about a subject, the more inclined she or she is to yell about his or her position.
Click to expand...
I was wondering how long it would take for this to come up. :rolleyes2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top