John & Martha held by police at gun point

[AdamZ]

Aero News reports that the Santa Barbara PD held John and Martha King at gunpoint as a result of a false report that they were in a stolen plane. According to the article, the company that reported the plane stolen was a private company up by the DEA.

http://www.aero-news.net/

 

[Mtns2Skies]

That article didnt seem too professionally written, I believe it but certainly not the work of a pro.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Man, that really irks me. John and Martha are some of the nicest people I've ever met. Anyone know what the local news outlets are there? It's time for some letter-writing...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That article didnt seem too professionally written, I believe it but certainly not the work of a pro.

Well, this is Aero-News we're talking about. They're like USA Today, with the opposite aviation bias.

 

[timwinters]

Folks; I don't have to tell you that the plight of aviation is not a healthy one right now -- this industry is dying the death of a thousand cuts... and here's even more stunning evidence that we're all in serious trouble. Two of aviation's best known figures, and experts in virtually segments of sport, general and business aviation were held and detained at gunpoint just 24 hours ago... by the Santa Barbara Police Department

Wow, seems a tad melodramatic. LEOs do stupid stuff like this every day to folks from all walks of life, not just pilots. And guess I wouldn't really expect most city & small town cops to know that an online FAA database even exists.

 

[sballmer]

Here is the Avweb article on this:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/John_Martha_King_Held_At_Gunpoint_203205-1.html

They also have a podcast interview with Martha.
The tail number was N50545.

Unbelievable...

 

[timwinters]

"I would have thought at that point when they got us out it would have ratcheted down quite a bit because I don't think we exactly look like your typical airplane thief,"

I wonder what she thinks the "typical airplane thief" looks like.

 

[silver-eagle]

For the POLICE, since one can look up registrations so easily, one would think you'd verify the information independently There is a considerable difference between an almost new CESSNA 172 and a 40 year old CESSNA 150. I don't care WHO told you to stop them, a little common sense is well advised. And if you were flying a stolen aircraft, would you really be so stupid as to file a flight plan? THAT, should have been the first clue.

 

[oshkosh99]

Well, I actually think this is an outstanding case of negligence on the side of the police and I do hope that John and Martha do take legal action against those responsible at the Santa Barbara Police Department.
One google search would have unveiled already at the 3rd or 4th result right on the first page the following site along many others with the same content
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N50545.html
showing, that this tailnumber, while issued to that stolen 150, was canceled on 7 Sept 2005 and then reissued on 23 Jan 2009 to a brand new C172.
If the police is fit to show up with 4 police cars and threaten innocent citicens at gun point, they should be fit enough to do a 2 min google search. Plus what do they think would have happened if they would have really faced armed aircraft thieves?? Would they have just taxied up and let themself get arrested?? Or did it occur to the officers that the "suspects" where sitting in an aircraft and they could have just again taken off and disappear? If the officers are too dumb to think about that or even do a 2 min google search, they should not be given a gun. Image what would have happened if those two pilots would have not reacted so cool, they might have been shot at.
I think this whole story is unbelievable and I do hope these guys face serious consequences.

 

[rottydaddy]

I wonder what she thinks the "typical airplane thief" looks like.

A 19-yr-old with no shoes?

I think the hype surrounding the "Barefoot Bandit" got to these cops... in their haste to bag some sort of epic desperado, they forgot to follow the same basic protocols that would apply to confirming a stolen car. If they were unaware of the FAA database and how it works, it still would have only taken minutes to find out.

It's true that LEOs make similar mistakes in other scenarios, but there's this apparent ignorance of aviation in general- a sort of knowledge gap.
Police departments can't be expected to know everything, including who John and Marhta are, but jeez... They are supposed to be trained to apply deduction to blank-page scenarios, not jump to the most dramatic conclusion.

It used to bother me a bit that the town cops regularly patrolled 47N (ostensibly on an anti-terrorist detail), until I realized that the more they see what is really going on and got to know some of the people who fly and work there, the better the situation gets for all concerned.

 

[EdFred]

Wow, seems a tad melodramatic. LEOs do stupid stuff like this every day to folks from all walks of life, not just pilots. And guess I wouldn't really expect most city & small town cops to know that an online FAA database even exists.

Then maybe they shouldn't be police officers. And people this stupid are allowed to wield guns as part of their job?

 

[Ted]

DHS searched me and my Aztec in Liberal, KS (which is very conservative, as I found out) because I was on the watch for flying too much

I would be angry if I was in their position, no doubt (just as I was for being treated like a criminal late at night when I was trying to get someplace to sleep), but this seems to me to be more an issue of expired paperwork not being deleted from the system than police misconduct. If you report your car stolen, it's going to stay in the system as stolen. The difference is that N-numbers get reassigned after being stolen, I'm not aware of license plates getting reassigned.

Seeing as us pilots don't even know the difference between all the different kinds of aircraft out there, I certainly don't expect local LEOs to. Can they even determine every type of car out there? I can't keep up with all the new plasticmobiles that look the same and that I don't want to buy or drive.

I feel sorry for John and Martha, for sure, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. But I'm not convinced that this was more than an unintentional mistake. I've always wondered why N-numbers can (and are) reassigned after something like this. Seems to me that would be a good way to create confusion like what happened here.

 

[Bob Noel]

For the POLICE, since one can look up registrations so easily, one would think you'd verify the information independently There is a considerable difference between an almost new CESSNA 172 and a 40 year old CESSNA 150. I don't care WHO told you to stop them, a little common sense is well advised. And if you were flying a stolen aircraft, would you really be so stupid as to file a flight plan? THAT, should have been the first clue.

Law enforcement successes have always been greatly improved
by the stupidity of criminals.

 

[JeffDG]

This could also easily be solved by the FAA not reissuing N-numbers of aircraft reported stolen.

 

[EdFred]

Ignorance is no excuse. Isn't that what us lowly peasants get repeatedly told in regards to the law? Same rules should apply, especially when these cowboys are given guns.

 

[EdFred]

Seeing as us pilots don't even know the difference between all the different kinds of aircraft out there, I certainly don't expect local LEOs to. Can they even determine every type of car out there? I can't keep up with all the new plasticmobiles that look the same and that I don't want to buy or drive.

Then maybe they shouldn't be trying to recover planes if they can't identify them.

 

[shywon]

DHS searched me and my Aztec in Liberal, KS (which is very conservative, as I found out) because I was on the watch for flying too much

I would be angry if I was in their position, no doubt (just as I was for being treated like a criminal late at night when I was trying to get someplace to sleep), but this seems to me to be more an issue of expired paperwork not being deleted from the system than police misconduct. If you report your car stolen, it's going to stay in the system as stolen.

While working at 2am on a friday night in the 80's, I stopped and picked up bank mail and a police car stopped behind me.....after waiting about 5 minutes for him to approach me I finally walked back, said hello and explained I was a courier. He said fine and I went back to the car.

He followed me about 3 miles to a remote area and I saw his flashers....
3 police cars ordered me out of the car, feet back and spread em....at gunpoint. I accidentally tapped the gun of the officer who cuffed me (that bothered me a little). Seems the company car had been reported stolen a year before and didnt make it off the computers once returned...

It was amusing at the time since I was on overtime and they let me go after an hour and a call to wake my boss at home. This type of paperwork error happens all the time. (haven't read the story but will now)

 

[JeffDG]

Then maybe they shouldn't be trying to recover planes if they can't identify them.

So, if your plane was stolen and tracked to a nearby airport, how would you feel if the police told you "Sorry, we don't know the difference between a Skyhawk and a Comanche, so we were unable to do anything."

 

[EdFred]

So, if your plane was stolen and tracked to a nearby airport, how would you feel if the police told you "Sorry, we don't know the difference between a Skyhawk and a Comanche, so we were unable to do anything."

Ask the airport manager, or someone at the FBO if that's a Comanche or Skyhawk. Oh wait, that would mean they would have to get off their power trip, and actually acknowledge that someone else knows something they don't.

 

[ScottM]

So, if your plane was stolen and tracked to a nearby airport, how would you feel if the police told you "Sorry, we don't know the difference between a Skyhawk and a Comanche, so we were unable to do anything."

Well they could look at the airplane's VIN B)B)

 

[Ted]

Then maybe they shouldn't be trying to recover planes if they can't identify them.

Same goes for cars? I can't recognize half the new cars out there anymore, I doubt they can, either.

The N-number is typically the identification of the aircraft, just like the license plate.

If you want to get them on the use of gunpoint, I think that would be reasonable, as I don't see why they would have a need to go that far. I don't see how they can be blamed for trying to recover a stolen plane that they were effectively alerted incorrectly. That would be like my calling, saying your Corvette was stolen, and them pulling you over. That would have me be the one to blame, not you.

 

[EdFred]

Same goes for cars? I can't recognize half the new cars out there anymore, I doubt they can, either.

The N-number is typically the identification of the aircraft, just like the license plate.

If you want to get them on the use of gunpoint, I think that would be reasonable, as I don't see why they would have a need to go that far. I don't see how they can be blamed for trying to recover a stolen plane that they were effectively alerted incorrectly. That would be like my calling, saying your Corvette was stolen, and them pulling you over. That would have me be the one to blame, not you.

Except it would be pulling my Corvette over when they were looking for a Malibu because someone that stole the Malibu flip-flopped license plates at the mall. If I am gonna steal a car, I ain't gonna have the license plate for that car on it. And if I am gonna steal a plane, I certainly ain't gonna file under the stolen N-number. Again, if the cops can't properly identify whatever vehicle it is they are to recover, they shouldn't be doing it.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Except it would be pulling my Corvette over when they were looking for a Malibu because someone that stole the Malibu flip-flopped license plates at the mall. If I am gonna steal a car, I ain't gonna have the license plate for that car on it. And if I am gonna steal a plane, I certainly ain't gonna file under the stolen N-number. Again, if the cops can't properly identify whatever vehicle it is they are to recover, they shouldn't be doing it.

I don't mean to turn this all political, but I think it helps to have a perspective on what the law is when discussing these kinds of situations.

Our investigatory system works on the basis of "reasonable suspicion." What that requires is that the police have "specific and articulable facts that would make a reasonable person think that a crime might have been committed" in order to stop you, by force if necessary, to make an investigation.

The police are not, nor have they ever been, required to determine a prosecutor's case in its totality before making a stop or an arrest, which can sometimes be quite confrontational depending on the situation. Thus, the police are not required to do things like make determinations of credibility, do a Google search (which is about as incredible as it gets), or know that there is a readily-available FAA database (which I assure you that no one outside of the aviation community is aware of).

All that I would have to do to have you stopped and investigated would be to make an anonymous phone call, saying that you stole a car and giving a description of what you looked like, where you might be found,and what the car looks like. I wouldn't even have to give my name, but if my information checked out, the police would be able to stop you.

Under our laws, that's considered "reasonable." It's a balance between: 1) total police control of everything; and 2) total anarchy. Put differently, what our system provides is that you're generally free to go about your business, unless there's a decent reason for you to be prevented from doing so on a limited basis.

 

[EdFred]

I don't mean to turn this all political, but I think it helps to have a perspective on what the law is when discussing these kinds of situations.

Our investigatory system works on the basis of "reasonable suspicion." What that requires is that the police have "specific and articulable facts that would make a reasonable person think that a crime might have been committed" in order to stop you, by force if necessary, to make an investigation.

The police are not, nor have they ever been, required to determine a prosecutor's case in its totality before making a stop or an arrest, which can sometimes be quite confrontational depending on the situation. Thus, the police are not required to do things like make determinations of credibility, do a Google search (which is about as incredible as it gets), or know that there is a readily-available FAA database (which I assure you that no one outside of the aviation community is aware of).

All that I would have to do to have you stopped and investigated would be to make an anonymous phone call, saying that you stole a car and giving a description of what you looked like, where you might be found,and what the car looks like. I wouldn't even have to give my name, but if my information checked out, the police would be able to stop you.

Under our laws, that's considered "reasonable." It's a balance between: 1) total police control of everything; and 2) total anarchy. Put differently, what our system provides is that you're generally free to go about your business, unless there's a decent reason for you to be prevented from doing so on a limited basis.

And when I pull out the registration showing the car they are looking for either 1)does not match the description (Malibu vs. Vette, 172 vs 150) or is in fact registered to me. I have no issue with them questioning, but holding people at gunpoint, slapping cuffs and asking questions later? If that's what everyone wants to happen, I'll take anarchy thanks.

 

[roncachamp]

Same goes for cars?

Yes, for all property.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Here is the Avweb article on this:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/John_Martha_King_Held_At_Gunpoint_203205-1.html

They also have a podcast interview with Martha.
The tail number was N50545.

Unbelievable...

Looks like the first mistake was filing and getting the N number in the "system"...

When the Kings filed IFR for their flight from San Diego to meet friends in Santa Barbara, the local police were alerted to intercept the aircraft when it landed.

Lesson for would be aircraft thieves: Don't file.

 

[Baron2PG]

This could also easily be solved by the FAA not reissuing N-numbers of aircraft reported stolen.

I'm not a math expert but by my calculations the FAA can issue 45.5 MILLION registrations without repeating a single number. Why in the world would they reuse old numbers especially from a stolen aircraft. Maybe if the owner requests a "vanity" number NIMSTUD or something but their tail was not anything special.

 

[Ted]

And when I pull out the registration showing the car they are looking for either 1)does not match the description (Malibu vs. Vette, 172 vs 150) or is in fact registered to me. I have no issue with them questioning, but holding people at gunpoint, slapping cuffs and asking questions later? If that's what everyone wants to happen, I'll take anarchy thanks.

I would bet you that if you got pulled over for a stolen car that the police would treat you about the same way. Think about it - if you actually were a car thief, you would likely make a hasty getaway, and likely try to injure the cops in the process. This is even more doable in a plane.

Traffic stops are dangerous for cops. Not because of us law-abiding citizens, but because of the ones who aren't. I hate rude behavior towards me as much as the next person, but I also understand it to an extent.

Now, why would you file with a stolen plane? 1) Criminals are frequently stupid (at least the ones who get caught are) 2) Because people wouldn't expect you to.

David is right, there is a balance. This is one of the side effects of the balance - sometimes an innocent person gets arrested. Of course, they were released.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

And when I pull out the registration showing the car they are looking for either 1)does not match the description (Malibu vs. Vette, 172 vs 150) or is in fact registered to me. I have no issue with them questioning, but holding people at gunpoint, slapping cuffs and asking questions later? If that's what everyone wants to happen, I'll take anarchy thanks.

With most vehicle thefts that I know of, you don't get to the point of "pulling out the registration." The guns are out first, and you're in cuffs.

The reality is that it's partially for officer safety, partially for your safety.

Imagine you're a cop stopping a car that is reported stolen. As you're walking up, you see the driver reach into the glove box. In that particular situation, the chances of some kind of deadly incident - whether justified or not - just escalated exponentially.

At the same time, true vehicle thefts are known - rightly or wrongly - as involving an elevated risk of danger to police officers.

So, that's why guns are out and cuffs are on, whether for right or wrong. Sucks, and I don't really like it, but I recognize the reasons for it at the same time. Such is the price we all pay for those among us who have created the need for it.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm not a math expert but by my calculations the FAA can issue 45.5 MILLION registrations without repeating a single number.

How did you arrive at that number? I make it 1,156,000.

 

[roncachamp]

I would bet you that if you got pulled over for a stolen car that the police would treat you about the same way. Think about it - if you actually were a car thief, you would likely make a hasty getaway, and likely try to injure the cops in the process. This is even more doable in a plane.

Did the Kings try to make a hasty getaway?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I would bet you that if you got pulled over for a stolen car that the police would treat you about the same way. Think about it - if you actually were a car thief, you would likely make a hasty getaway, and likely try to injure the cops in the process. This is even more doable in a plane.

Traffic stops are dangerous for cops. Not because of us law-abiding citizens, but because of the ones who aren't. I hate rude behavior towards me as much as the next person, but I also understand it to an extent.

Now, why would you file with a stolen plane? 1) Criminals are frequently stupid (at least the ones who get caught are) 2) Because people wouldn't expect you to.

David is right, there is a balance. This is one of the side effects of the balance - sometimes an innocent person gets arrested. Of course, they were released.

You got it.

Guns out and cuffs on sucks if you're innocent. No doubt about it. A .40 cal to the chest sucks even more, regardless of which "side" you're on.

In this situation, I suppose we could actually call it, "don't shoot first and ask questions later."

 

[roncachamp]

With most vehicle thefts that I know of, you don't get to the point of "pulling out the registration." The guns are out first, and you're in cuffs.

The reality is that it's partially for officer safety, partially for your safety.

Can you explain how having the guns pointed at me enhances my safety?

 

[DeeG]

Wow, seems a tad melodramatic. LEOs do stupid stuff like this every day to folks from all walks of life, not just pilots. And guess I wouldn't really expect most city & small town cops to know that an online FAA database even exists.

We have access to the DB through our normal LE system, not the internet. But you have to keep in mind, most non pilots can't tell the difference between a 150 and a 172. I had one of my fellow dispatchers ask me two days ago if a Piper PA 32 was a helicopter, because she couldn't tell by looking at the info we get.

And as far as John and Martha being two of the most recognizable pilots out there, if you're not a pilot, how would you know "who" they were?

And most of you don't seem to understand that not all comm centers (much less MDT's) have internet access. We are pretty much limited to the LE FAA database, which can be confusing at best. And what we get on our screen looks nothing like what you get when you run a tail number through the FAA internet site or the airport data.com site. (And I cannot access the airportdata.com site though our work internet, its blocked.)

And asking someone at the FBO? Most of the airports out here have no tower, no FBO, no fuel, just a couple of hangars (if that).

There isn't a Dept of Licensing in the country that would assign a previously stolen plate to a different vehicle. That would be sheer stupidity. I put the blame on the FAA for doing just that. Not enough tail numbers to go around? then do what every state in the nation does when the current format of plates runs out of numbers. Change the format.

The officers there were told that the tail number came back to a stolen airplane. They did what they were supposed to do. One of my guys makes a traffic stop and I see that the car/license plate is stolen? I relay that to the officer and you can bet the occupants will come out of that vehicle at gunpoint. And if the registered owner of the car just happens to be the one driving? Doesn't matter, car is still in the system as stolen. He/She has some 'splaining to do before they are released.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Can you explain how having the guns pointed at me enhances my safety?

Are you going to do anything other than put your hands either: 1) in the air; or 2) out the window?

Do you know how many police shootings there are because a police officer mistakenly, yet wholly justifiably, thinks a person is holding a gun?

Same thing applies in traffic stops. If I'm a cop and I'm dealing with a stolen vehicle stop, and I see someone reach into the glovebox or center console, I'm thinking "is he getting a gun." My adrenaline is going to jump a few notches, and my rational-decision-making-ability is going to correspondingly drop a few notches. Maybe you're just getting out your registration, but if I'm dealing with a stolen vehicle, that's not an assumption that I can afford to make.

That might not be "right" or "fair," but that's what happens. It's how bad decisions get made. Again, unfair, but I'll take gun pointed at me over gun pointed at me and fired any day of the week.

So, if having the guns pointed at you keeps you from doing something stupid that might otherwise get you shot, and if it keeps a cop from getting shot, I don't have too much of a problem with it. I don't like it, but I'll blame your car-thieves-with-deadly-weapons before I break out the jack-boot arguments.

 

[EdFred]

I would bet you that if you got pulled over for a stolen car that the police would treat you about the same way. Think about it - if you actually were a car thief, you would likely make a hasty getaway, and likely try to injure the cops in the process. This is even more doable in a plane.

Traffic stops are dangerous for cops. Not because of us law-abiding citizens, but because of the ones who aren't. I hate rude behavior towards me as much as the next person, but I also understand it to an extent.

Now, why would you file with a stolen plane? 1) Criminals are frequently stupid (at least the ones who get caught are) 2) Because people wouldn't expect you to.

David is right, there is a balance. This is one of the side effects of the balance - sometimes an innocent person gets arrested. Of course, they were released.

If the car reported stolen was a 68 Camaro and he pulls me over in a 2000's Corvette just because the plates match, I certainly don't want anyone with that diminished mental capacity holding a gun to my head or chest. Maybe the before jumping out of his car and pulling the gun on me, he oughta call back to dispactch or whatever and say hey, this is a 1997-2004 2 seater I pulled over, not a 1968 Camaro.

If they can't tell the difference between aircraft, they shouldn't be attempting to "recover" them. Same goes for cars, or any other number of things.

 

[EdFred]

Are you going to do anything other than put your hands either: 1) in the air; or 2) out the window?

I already have the registration pulled, and have it held up when they approach the car. I am hoping for a lawsuit payoff.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I don't mean to turn this all political, but I think it helps to have a perspective on what the law is when discussing these kinds of situations.

Our investigatory system works on the basis of "reasonable suspicion." What that requires is that the police have "specific and articulable facts that would make a reasonable person think that a crime might have been committed" in order to stop you, by force if necessary, to make an investigation.

The police are not, nor have they ever been, required to determine a prosecutor's case in its totality before making a stop or an arrest, which can sometimes be quite confrontational depending on the situation. Thus, the police are not required to do things like make determinations of credibility, do a Google search (which is about as incredible as it gets), or know that there is a readily-available FAA database (which I assure you that no one outside of the aviation community is aware of).

All that I would have to do to have you stopped and investigated would be to make an anonymous phone call, saying that you stole a car and giving a description of what you looked like, where you might be found,and what the car looks like. I wouldn't even have to give my name, but if my information checked out, the police would be able to stop you.

Under our laws, that's considered "reasonable." It's a balance between: 1) total police control of everything; and 2) total anarchy. Put differently, what our system provides is that you're generally free to go about your business, unless there's a decent reason for you to be prevented from doing so on a limited basis.

David: I don't know the entire story, just what's been presented. The officers approaching the plane or asking the occupants to get out doesn't bother me. The threatened use of deadly force does.

Why must an LEO draw (and in this case several) and point a deadly weapon at folks like this in this circumstance? Why couldn't they deal with a reasonable explanation on the scene?

They know mistakes can happen as much as anyone! They can be behind cover as the folks get out and they can have weapons at the ready if needed.

I don't think weapons should be pointed at innocent citizens unnecessarily. And, if a reasonable explanation is offered, someone should be paying attention and be willing to endeavor to reasonably address the issue, not just back these folks as criminals.

Best,

Dave

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

If the car reported stolen was a 68 Camaro and he pulls me over in a 2000's Corvette just because the plates match, I certainly don't want anyone with that diminished mental capacity holding a gun to my head or chest. Maybe the before jumping out of his car and pulling the gun on me, he oughta call back to dispactch or whatever and say hey, this is a 1997-2004 2 seater I pulled over, not a 1968 Camaro.

If they can't tell the difference between aircraft, they shouldn't be attempting to "recover" them. Same goes for cars, or any other number of things.

Are you saying the a police officer should disregard an actual tag that comes back as stolen?

 

[EdFred]

Are you saying the a police officer should disregard an actual tag that comes back as stolen?

I'm saying that maybe there should be more questions asked first before drawing the weapons. If I am going to steal a car, (and I realize this is just me), I am going to take a plate from another car and swap em. How often to people check their plates? The innocent person is going to get tagged simply for driving their own car around. And I said they should call back in and say are you sure about that, this isn't the car it's supposed to be.