Homeland Security got suspicious...

What's an "unscheduled stop" in this context? And why would it be suspicious for him to stop about halfway to his destination? Just a WAG, but it sounds like maybe he was already under suspicion, but why DHS and not DEA? I've got nothing but questions...
 
I hope he accounted for the 30lbs of weed on his W&B.
 
There has got to be more to this story.
 
One month after obtaining his PPL he pulls this stunt... Sorta makes you wonder if this is what he had in mind all during his training.

(thread likes this points out Henning's absence. We'd be over 80 replies by now instead of less than 10.
 
No way the authorities weren't already watching this guy.
 
bradg33 said:
No way the authorities weren't already watching this guy.
Click to expand...

Yup. I made an unscheduled stop on an IFR flight plan recently. The controller asked why, but my sense was that he was making sure that I wasn't deviating because of an emergency that I didn't announce.
 
I would wager someone ratted him out. Or he purchased from an undercover.
 
I didn't know they could hold you for 12 hours waiting for a warrant.
 
Just guessing here, but I suspect that the average appeals court judge has absolutely no clue about what's suspicious and what isn't in the realm of aviation.
 
Back when I was flying charter I occasionally had to make destination changes. At some point in time they started asking "why", gave them an answer, just made something up and they accepted it. I asked why they started asking and they said they were required to. I never inquires more because I assumed it was some moronic government regulation. Who knows.
 
So now the govt. is a proud owner of a 63 Cherokee.
 
TommyG said:
I would wager someone ratted him out. Or he purchased from an undercover.
Click to expand...

Or, the TSA inderdiction unit in KC was bored and looking for a reason to bring out their new dog.

I wouldn't doubt if TSA tracks some kind of ATC "exceptions" list. I'm guessing here. But it would make sense that ATC would keep a record of filed flight plans that did not conclude as expected, and some sort of TSA intelligence unit would track those exceptions. And, then the interdiction unit would cherry pick from those exceptions in their local area to "keep in mind" for regular security "sweeps". All in public areas where expectation of privacy is not a factor. And, then when the dog alerts, "probable cause" is established.

There ya go, no government conspiracy. No "French Connection". Just routine, mind numbing procedure that paid off. One less dumb ass to bring discredit to the GA community.
 
Last edited:
Was heading to an airport 30 miles west of me. Pretty wild
 
wilkersk said:
.....And, then when the dog alerts, "probable cause" is established....
Click to expand...


Police dog alerts lol

There are tons of videos on YouTube of that scam, cop points at areas on the vehicle and the dog jumps where he points. Quit a few too where it's a young driver, cop gets the dog to "alert", uses that to crap on the constitution and preform what should be a illegal search, finds nothing with the driver even telling the cop he doesn't even use drugs, yet the dog "alerts".

I'd wager for every guy who has drugs you tons others searched who didn't have jack. Frankly I'd rather some folks sold some drugs (victimless crime) then Americans had their rights violated for no damn reason in a failed attempt to make a "bust" on folks who don't even so much as smoke weed.


Here's a little gem

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo


Sadly this is the new norm, and police just "doing their jobs" and citizens who don't consent are now the bad guys, funny how backwards things have become in this country.
 
Last edited:
I loved the "If I hadn't been detained at the hotel, I would have been able to escape with my contraband before the warrant got issued." This obviously is some sort of requirement that the prosecutor and the police engage in sportsmanlike conduct. Alas such would put them at a strong disadvantage given the non-sporting nature of most criminals.
 
Getonit said:
Back when I was flying charter I occasionally had to make destination changes. At some point in time they started asking "why", gave them an answer, just made something up and they accepted it. I asked why they started asking and they said they were required to. I never inquires more because I assumed it was some moronic government regulation. Who knows.
Click to expand...

Threads on this subject have given me the impression that it was instituted as some kind of anti-terrorism measure. I haven't heard of there being any regulation involved though, just FAA instructions to its employees.
 
wilkersk said:
...I wouldn't doubt if TSA tracks some kind of ATC "exceptions" list. I'm guessing here. But it would make sense that ATC would keep a record of filed flight plans that did not conclude as expected, and some sort of TSA intelligence unit would track those exceptions. And, then the interdiction unit would cherry pick from those exceptions in their local area to "keep in mind" for regular security "sweeps". All in public areas where expectation of privacy is not a factor. And, then when the dog alerts, "probable cause" is established...
Click to expand...

Tracking deviations from flight plans would only work for IFR flights. Controllers on the forum have said that ATC does not receive VFR flight plans. However, they could add to that a list of destination changes of aircraft on flight following.
 
Every time I deviate on an IFR plan they ask why these days, occasionally when getting VFR radar services.

I'm not even sure the HSA cares about the deviation in this case. You fly between certain end points you're likely to get accosted on the ground. Alas, to certain extent this is not illegal on the government's part.
 
flyingron said:
I loved the "If I hadn't been detained at the hotel, I would have been able to escape with my contraband before the warrant got issued." This obviously is some sort of requirement that the prosecutor and the police engage in sportsmanlike conduct. Alas such would put them at a strong disadvantage given the non-sporting nature of most criminals.
Click to expand...

"His evasive behavior at the hotel buttresses the probable cause finding. Cf. United States v. Massi, 761 F.3d 512, 522-24 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding—where the dog did not alert—suspicious flight pattern, denial of consent to search airplane, and evasive and inconsistent answers about box on airplane did not show probable cause)."

Yeah. I found it interesting that the only probable cause was the evasive behavior at the hotel. I think the "sportsmanlike conduct" thing is the 4th Amendment.
 
Last edited:
wilkersk said:
Or, the TSA inderdiction unit in KC was bored and looking for a reason to bring out their new dog.

I wouldn't doubt if TSA tracks some kind of ATC "exceptions" list. I'm guessing here. But it would make sense that ATC would keep a record of filed flight plans that did not conclude as expected, and some sort of TSA intelligence unit would track those exceptions. And, then the interdiction unit would cherry pick from those exceptions in their local area to "keep in mind" for regular security "sweeps". All in public areas where expectation of privacy is not a factor. And, then when the dog alerts, "probable cause" is established.

There ya go, no government conspiracy. No "French Connection". Just routine, mind numbing procedure that paid off. One less dumb ass to bring discredit to the GA community.
Click to expand...

TSA and intelligence in the same sentence is a contradiction of terms.
 
Old Geek said:
Yeah. I found it interesting that the only probable cause was the evasive behavior at the hotel. I think the "sportsmanlike conduct" thing is the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't take "probable cause" to seize, only an articulable and reasonable suspicion. As it pointed out he was held at the hotel based on his suspicious behavior, they already had also determined the plane to be suspicious and as the decision points out they were well within their rights to hold the aircraft even if the pilot had not been held.

Terry pretty much decided this is within the limits of the fourth amendment. As for the actual search, even though the decision indicates it would have likely been considered permissible without a warrant, they did get a warrant prior to the search. The quibbling was whether the FBI had the right to detain the pilot/aircraft while the warrant was being retrieved. The answer to that wasn't even close in this case, they can. This appeal was pretty much wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
Old Geek said:
"His evasive behavior at the hotel buttresses the probable cause finding. Cf. United States v. Massi, 761 F.3d 512, 522-24 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding—where the dog did not alert—suspicious flight pattern, denial of consent to search airplane, and evasive and inconsistent answers about box on airplane did not show probable cause)."

Yeah. I found it interesting that the only probable cause was the evasive behavior at the hotel. I think the "sportsmanlike conduct" thing is the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer..

But does "(finding—where the dog did not alert—suspicious flight pattern, denial of consent to search airplane, and evasive and inconsistent answers about box on airplane did not show probable cause)" mean that these items were NOT considered to show probable cause?

"Suspicious flight pattern" almost implies to me that they had been tracking him for a while and were using that as a part of the excuse to stop him but it was not strong enough to be considered probable cause.
 
James331 said:
..

Sadly this is the new norm, and police just "doing their jobs" and citizens who don't consent are now the bad guys, funny how backwards things have become in this country.
Click to expand...

If this is somehow directed at me. I think you've gone a bit off the res. I'm all for consittutional rights. I'm all for holding cops accountable when they bend the rules.

Cherish and defend your constitutional rights. Just don't forget that not everything is in need of a rebel with a cause.

Most people, cops included, are decent people trying to do a good job. If you can't believe that, then (it would seem to me that) you must lead a really difficult life.
 
flyingron said:
I loved the "If I hadn't been detained at the hotel, I would have been able to escape with my contraband before the warrant got issued." This obviously is some sort of requirement that the prosecutor and the police engage in sportsmanlike conduct. Alas such would put them at a strong disadvantage given the non-sporting nature of most criminals.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right. The spotsmanlike rule they are supposed to adhere to is the constitution. Those rules have been significantly eroded in the vain of security and giving more authority to government to catch bad guys. The problem is the rules were written to protect everyone in our society. When those rules are relaxed or patently ignored those same standards apply to everyone, not just the criminals.

freedom is expensive. Sometimes the bad guys get away. Sometimes they are successful in attacks against the good guys.

I think the better question here is why it's ok for the government to tell me I can't be a drug addict, criminalize consumption of drugs and violate everyone's rights in an effort to control my actions.
 
Matthew said:
I'm not a lawyer..

But does "(finding—where the dog did not alert—suspicious flight pattern, denial of consent to search airplane, and evasive and inconsistent answers about box on airplane did not show probable cause)" mean that these items were NOT considered to show probable cause?

"Suspicious flight pattern" almost implies to me that they had been tracking him for a while and were using that as a part of the excuse to stop him but it was not strong enough to be considered probable cause.
Click to expand...

Refusing consent to a search is not in any way probable cause. Nor is refusing to answer questions. They are both addressed in the bill of rights. Plenty of court rulings around telling cops it is not ok to say "that guy is exercising his constitutional rights. He's guilty". In fact it was very much an emphasis in constitutional law classes during law enforcement academy.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
You are exactly right. The spotsmanlike rule they are supposed to adhere to is the constitution. Those rules have been significantly eroded in the vain of security and giving more authority to government to catch bad guys. The problem is the rules were written to protect everyone in our society. When those rules are relaxed or patently ignored those same standards apply to everyone, not just the criminals.

freedom is expensive. Sometimes the bad guys get away. Sometimes they are successful in attacks against the good guys.

I think the better question here is why it's ok for the government to tell me I can't be a drug addict, criminalize consumption of drugs and violate everyone's rights in an effort to control my actions.
Click to expand...

Exactly!





wilkersk said:
If this is somehow directed at me. I think you've gone a bit off the res. I'm all for consittutional rights. I'm all for holding cops accountable when they bend the rules.

Cherish and defend your constitutional rights. Just don't forget that not everything is in need of a rebel with a cause.

Most people, cops included, are decent people trying to do a good job. If you can't believe that, then (it would seem to me that) you must lead a really difficult life.
Click to expand...

Didn't have a thing to do with you actually.

My life is actually quite laid back, I know a few good guys who have become cops, however the demographics of most police does cause issues, their is the is against them training and attitude which causes issues, etc.

Shy of the few older cops still in the streets, most of these young guys have this tactical John Wayne crap going on and are dead set on finding and eliminating trouble, problem is when there isn't much trouble and you're still looking, you often find it even when it's not there.

My dealings with police.

Tickets, speeding and also parking, some of which are straight predatory, a few were also just a oops on my end (nothing crazy though)

Break in to my house, police did nothing, didn't even try, no fingerprint checking, just here's a report, which would have been handy if they stole my toilet paper too and I needing something worthless to wipe with.

Hit and run on my car, same deal more or less. No report but they said they would investigate it, I ended up having to call them and see what work they did, said they didn't have any leads and shut the case, or something to that effect. I phoned up a couple shops in the area to ask if any police had asked if they had any cameras looking towards where my car was hit...they said no police ever spoke with them.


So, frankly outside of when police are just trying to generate revenue, in my law abiding life they have proven themselves nearly worthless outside from directing traffic at accidents, which is also often done my volunteer citizens on patrol types.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
You are exactly right. The spotsmanlike rule they are supposed to adhere to is the constitution.
Click to expand...
They did. The Constitution says no search without warrant. They got one. Nothing says they can't hold up your departure while the warrant is obtained and the US SUPREME COURT is the arbiter of the Constitution (as DEFINED by the CONSTITUTION itself) and such there is no EROSION in this circumstance.
 
flyingron said:
They did. The Constitution says no search without warrant. They got one. Nothing says they can't hold up your departure while the warrant is obtained and the US SUPREME COURT is the arbiter of the Constitution (as DEFINED by the CONSTITUTION itself) and such there is no EROSION in this circumstance.
Click to expand...

Tell me what you think about this

Texas cameras
 
"Flying a non-commercial aircraft a long distance at night, he deviated from
his flight plan—suspicious for a new pilot."

Really?

Can't wait until ADS-B allows the government to track us from startup to shutdown. Oh, yeah, it's for "safety."
 
Not sure why a diversion constitutes suspicious behavior. If I'm flying and I'm tired, I'm going to land and rest.

Are they saying the diversion would be suspicious but if I filed to fly there in the first place, that would be just normal?
 
I have a feeling someone was tracking him when he took off, they were just looking for a chance to grab him, wherever he landed.
 
dans2992 said:
I didn't know they could hold you for 12 hours waiting for a warrant.
Click to expand...
They arrested him based on probably cause. But the court points out that even if he hadn't been arrested, if he'd tried to leave, the police could have searched the plane without a warrant based on the Caroll doctrine.
 
flyingron said:
They did. The Constitution says no search without warrant. They got one. Nothing says they can't hold up your departure while the warrant is obtained and the US SUPREME COURT is the arbiter of the Constitution (as DEFINED by the CONSTITUTION itself) and such there is no EROSION in this circumstance.
Click to expand...


The Constitution says searches and seizures have to be reasonable, and it says that you need probable cause to get a warrant. It does not prohibit warrantless searches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top