Dammit AOPA....

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,510
Location
Middle of nowhere Texas
Display Name
Everything Offends Me
Home Airfield
KLUD
http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All News/2013/June/CBPGuidelinesKneeboard.pdf

Relevant part of frustration: "step 7: If you are a member of the AOPA Pilot Protection Services, and it is during normal business hours, call 1-800-872-2672 to speak with a plan attorney."

Gee, you think maybe AOPA could consider this important enough to extend this service to its members without requiring additional membership? It seems this might be in their best interests to stop this kinda stuff.

Never miss an opportunity to fund raise, right?
 
I noticed the same thing. They were so close to appearing to genuinely care about pilots, then...money grab.
 
Challenged said:
I noticed the same thing. They were so close to appearing to genuinely care about pilots, then...money grab.
Click to expand...

Yep - I actually originally planned to come here with a "Thank you AOPA!" post instead - because the card has so much useful info on it....but then, as an authoritative slap in the face...

"BUY OUR CRAP!"
 
Dean V said:
If AOPA included free lawyer consultation for this type of event, what exactly do you think an attorney on the other end of a phone is going to do?
Click to expand...

What would a paid one do? If the answer is still nothing, then perhaps this shouldn't be step 7....
 
SkyHog said:
What would a paid one do? If the answer is still nothing, then perhaps this shouldn't be step 7....
Click to expand...

So for $45 a year you should get:
-a magazine
-online flight planner
-advocacy in Washington
-free live seminars
-free online seminars
-some discounted services
AND Free legal representation?!?

Priced a lawyer lately?

Sheesh. You don't expect much, do you?!!
 
LDJones said:
So for $45 a year you should get:
-a magazine
-online flight planner
-advocacy in Washington
-free live seminars
-free online seminars
-some discounted services
AND Free legal representation?!?

Priced a lawyer lately?

Sheesh. You don't expect much, do you?!!
Click to expand...

Remember - this happens to only a few people a year. AOPA could easily eat that cost as part of its "advocacy."

I'm not suggesting everyone get free legal advice, but I am saying maybe AOPA could do its job here...
 
SkyHog said:
Remember - this happens to only a few people a year. AOPA could easily eat that cost as part of its "advocacy."

I'm not suggesting everyone get free legal advice, but I am saying maybe AOPA could do its job here...
Click to expand...

And I'm saying their "job" isn't to provide free lawyers for their members. The last general purpose legal services plan I looked at was about $15/mo. Do the math.
 
I deleted the extra legal service after a few years finding that in the one instance I used it that I got about as much legal advice as I paid for, about $50 worth, so used my own lawyer anyway.

AOPA has quickly brought the issue out into national exposure and given pilots the card to carry as a field reference but, in 99.9% of these aircraft search cases I will bet that (unfortunately) they are legal.
 
Don't like it, but I can't blame it. Odds are good that it is a member of their organization reading the thing, and that said member might have need of their paid-for services in such an event. Probably poorly placed, and yes it did have the appearance of a money grab. But it is their document, their website, and they are entitled to put whatever on it they want. I might actually re-up this year.
 
I have quit AOPA (various reasons)
But I'm in their corner on this. Lawyers charge for their time when working and they also get paid to be on a retainer (i.e. available at the drop of a phone call)
If you believe that $45 should buy this service, how about a few hundred of you forming your own help-a-pilot association and hiring a concierge law firm. Should be a real eye opener.

For comparison look at the concierge medical care. Find out how much it costs to keep a doctor on call.
 
Oh, and BTW. That $45 gets you a phone opinion. Not a law firm at the defendant's table for the next five years.
 
also, don't forget

§ 63-26. Tampering with aircraft made crime.
Any person who shall, without the consent of the owner, go upon or enter, tamper with or in
any way damage or injure any airplane or other aircraft, or any personal property under the
control of or being used by any public or private airport or aircraft landing facility shall be
guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, and the showing of willful or malicious intent shall not be
necessary to sustain a conviction hereunder. (1929, c. 90, s. 2; 1987, c. 818, s. 3; 1993, c. 539,
s. 495; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
Click to expand...
 
What were you in for?

- Misdemeanor (and they all moved away from me)
- in the first degree! (and they all moved back)
 
Matthew said:
What were you in for?

- Misdemeanor (and they all moved away from me)
- in the first degree! (and they all moved back)
Click to expand...
I walked down the street wearing an outfit made totally of brown wrapping paper. My pants were made of it, so was my shirt. Even my hat and shoes were made of wrapping paper.

They arrested me for rustling....

Ron Wanttaja
 
They got me for attempted indecent exposure, but I beat the rap.

They couldn't make it stand up in court.
 
tonycondon said:
littering...
Click to expand...

Matthew said:
...and disturbing the peace.
Click to expand...

And they all came back, shook my hand,
and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the
bench. And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of
things, until the Sargeant came over, had some paper in his hand, held it
up and said.
 
This shouldn't be a surprise. You get what you pay for, and if you are paying the basic AOPA $45 dues you are going to get the basic services and no more. Just like AAA. If you want them to come out more than 5 miles to help you, then you have to pay for the deluxe plan.
 
Wait - you mean that AOPA lawyers can't figure out CBP 'rights?'

You mean its complex and confusing and there are no bright lines?

Then I guess the answer always needs to be:"

"Officer, I do not answer police questions. I invoke my right to remain silent. I refuse consent to any searches. Assume I am asking you every minute if I am free to go."
 
Based on the "advice" I've received from AOPA over the years on regulatory and medical issues, it is unlikely that I would trust the competency of their "legal services" folks at any price. AOPA has dispensed nothing but incredibly poor advice to me on everything from dealing with the FAA, to guidance medical issues, to simple questions on regulations. The times I've asked for guidance on dealing with local airport issues, they've outright told me, "you're on your own."

They may know how to lobby, and that does perhaps have some value, but I don't see much competency beyond that from them.

Regarding dealing with law enforcement, I suspect (though I am not a lawyer, and do not provide legal advice) that keeping your mouth shut until you talk to a lawyer is generally the best advice. It isn't right, but law enforcement increasingly does whatever they want to do, and leaves the legality for the courts to determine. Declining consent to a search is one thing, but protesting or attempting to argue innocence could quickly get you into trouble.


JKG
 
Maxmosbey said:
This shouldn't be a surprise. You get what you pay for, and if you are paying the basic AOPA $45 dues you are going to get the basic services and no more. Just like AAA. If you want them to come out more than 5 miles to help you, then you have to pay for the deluxe plan.
Click to expand...

Which I have, and had it pay for itself for several years shortly after I bought it. :D
 
I would think that closer to 99% of the searches are NOT legal if they are involuntary.

Just because someone somewhere is the Air Interdiction Room says you have drugs does not mean you have drugs. Just because one LEO tells another LEO that the first LEO has a suspicion you have drugs does not create probable cause to search absent consent. They can't gin up probable cause by having one agency tell another agency - thats not probable cause under the law. You can't wash the warrant requirement by running it through a couple different agencies until it becomes impossible to know who created the facts.

If they have sufficient facts to warrant a felony aircraft stop, guns drawn face on the pavement - then they have sufficient facts to obtain a warrant. . . .

The response is designed to intimidate you into consenting to a search. If you stand your ground, they will go away. If enough of us stand our ground - they will go back into their hidey holes and go after bicyclists.

As for the AOPA - they have less than two dozen reports right now - why could they not simply file a single 42 USC 1983 action with 20 plaintiffs against CBP and DEA in the District of Columbia district court?

The best defense is a good offense - and that applies in court too.
 
Matthew said:
...and disturbing the peace.


--
The chance of a fed agent being charged with that misdemeanor (§ 63-26) is probably pretty low.
Click to expand...

Oh I know. Even if they were, it would be thrown out by some secret court somewhere.
 
comanchepilot said:
I would think that closer to 99% of the searches are NOT legal if they are involuntary.

If they have sufficient facts to warrant a felony aircraft stop, guns drawn face on the pavement - then they have sufficient facts to obtain a warrant. . . .

The response is designed to intimidate you into consenting to a search. If you stand your ground, they will go away. If enough of us stand our ground - they will go back into their hidey holes and go after bicyclists.

As for the AOPA - they have less than two dozen reports right now - why could they not simply file a single 42 USC 1983 action with 20 plaintiffs against CBP and DEA in the District of Columbia district court?

The best defense is a good offense - and that applies in court too.
Click to expand...


I agree, and the AOPA has plenty of (our) money to do that with.

The biggest issue with keeping your rights, is that if they are stepped on by a politician or government agency it takes a lot of money to fight them. And in the end, the people responsible are not held accountable. The cost of them losing a lawsuit is borne by the taxpayer.
 
comanchepilot said:
Wait - you mean that AOPA lawyers can't figure out CBP 'rights?'

You mean its complex and confusing and there are no bright lines?

Then I guess the answer always needs to be:"

"Officer, I do not answer police questions. I invoke my right to remain silent. I refuse consent to any searches. Assume I am asking you every minute if I am free to go."
Click to expand...
How about just saying "I don't want to talk to you"?:D
 
But what about the 8x10 Glossy pictures with the circles and arrows?:dunno:

Cheers
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I deleted the extra legal service after a few years finding that in the one instance I used it that I got about as much legal advice as I paid for, about $50 worth, so used my own lawyer anyway.

AOPA has quickly brought the issue out into national exposure and given pilots the card to carry as a field reference but, in 99.9% of these aircraft search cases I will bet that (unfortunately) they are legal.
Click to expand...
When I called the AOPA rep asked what I wanted and said I didn't need to talk to the lawyer. Tanks, guyz.
 
Maxmosbey said:
How about just saying "I don't want to talk to you"?:D
Click to expand...

Go find the thread on the Supreme Court case from earlier this week . . .

I don't want to talk to you is an insufficient communication of your right to remain silent . . .

You do what you want - you've been given advice over and over again from people who actually know what you need to say - but if you think you know better - then go right ahead. . .
 
comanchepilot said:
I would think that closer to 99% of the searches are NOT legal if they are involuntary.

Just because someone somewhere is the Air Interdiction Room says you have drugs does not mean you have drugs. Just because one LEO tells another LEO that the first LEO has a suspicion you have drugs does not create probable cause to search absent consent. They can't gin up probable cause by having one agency tell another agency - thats not probable cause under the law. You can't wash the warrant requirement by running it through a couple different agencies until it becomes impossible to know who created the facts.

If they have sufficient facts to warrant a felony aircraft stop, guns drawn face on the pavement - then they have sufficient facts to obtain a warrant. . . .

The response is designed to intimidate you into consenting to a search. If you stand your ground, they will go away. If enough of us stand our ground - they will go back into their hidey holes and go after bicyclists.

As for the AOPA - they have less than two dozen reports right now - why could they not simply file a single 42 USC 1983 action with 20 plaintiffs against CBP and DEA in the District of Columbia district court?

The best defense is a good offense - and that applies in court too.
Click to expand...

They might make someone in the federal govt mad. Can't have that now, can we?
 
comanchepilot said:
Go find the thread on the Supreme Court case from earlier this week . . .

I don't want to talk to you is an insufficient communication of your right to remain silent . . .

You do what you want - you've been given advice over and over again from people who actually know what you need to say - but if you think you know better - then go right ahead. . .
Click to expand...
:rofl::rofl: Yep, I'm sure that your experiences are much more than mine in this area. I'll do exactly what you say the next time I get stopped by the po po.
 
ScottM said:
And they all came back, shook my hand,
and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the
bench. And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of
things, until the Sargeant came over, had some paper in his hand, held it
up and said.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more "Alice's Restaurant", but YMMV.
 
comanchepilot said:
As for the AOPA - they have less than two dozen reports right now - why could they not simply file a single 42 USC 1983 action with 20 plaintiffs against CBP and DEA in the District of Columbia district court?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they forgot to sign up for their own legal services plan. ;)

Keeping the Yodices in the manner to which they are accustomed, isn't cheap.
 
Dean V said:
Federal officers investigating what they believe is aircraft hauling drugs should properly control the pilot and passengers. No one is going to be making phone calls or doing anything with their phones. Other suspects can be tipped of, evidence in the phones destroyed, or help summoned to attack the officers.

That's why the "call the legal plan" is nothing but an advertisement. And if you read the plan, this type of event isn't even covered.
Click to expand...

And what is giving them that belief? You cant just say yea, he flew from CA to AZ so we have cause to search him, this aint China.

The only thing that should be "controlled" here are the BS terrorists that overreach what authority they have by searching citizens planes for no good reason.
 
File a flight plan... Doesn't that protect us from all aviation woe's.......
 
Looks like its been updated. Still has the sales pitch in it.

Also - who proofread this? I'm not familiar with AOAP.org...
 
comanchepilot said:
Go find the thread on the Supreme Court case from earlier this week . . .

I don't want to talk to you is an insufficient communication of your right to remain silent . . .
Click to expand...

The same case said that the jury can hear that you suddenly clammed up as if that was evidence of your guilt. :mad2:

And don't forget that lying to a fed is a crime itself...and you can't record the interview or have a lawyer present. They will write down what you said and file a report that serves as the record they can hang you with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top