Over policed during ramp chk?

They really, really, really, wanted that plane and their commander is still pizzed they didn't find something to justify seizure... In some jurisdictions a drop bag of pot would have magically appeared and the plane would have been 'gone'... The presence of the civilian FAA inspectors is likely what stopped that from happening...

denny-o
 
kkoran said:
The dog entered the picture after consent to search had been granted.
Click to expand...

And it still would have entered the picture even if consent was not granted. So consent or not, that airplane would have been searched.
 
You can always walk away from a ramp check can't you? I mean they can't detain you and prevent you from leaving. I would have been interesting if the subject of the inspection/search had said " well guys gotta go" feel free to walk around the outside of my locked plane as much as you want. It certainly would have revealed that it was no ramp check IMHO. Once they say "no you can't leave" then it ain't no ramp check.
 
AdamZ said:
You can always walk away from a ramp check can't you? I mean they can't detain you and prevent you from leaving. I would have been interesting if the subject of the inspection/search had said " well guys gotta go" feel free to walk around the outside of my locked plane as much as you want. It certainly would have revealed that it was no ramp check IMHO. Once they say "no you can't leave" then it ain't no ramp check.
Click to expand...
You can walk away from the FAA but US Customs not so much so. Seems like many people want more enforcement against drug smuggling and illegal aliens but when they are wrongly suspected of being the bad guy they aren't too pleased.
 
Everskyward said:
You can walk away from the FAA but US Customs not so much so. Seems like many people want more enforcement against drug smuggling and illegal aliens but when they are wrongly suspected of being the bad guy they aren't too pleased.
Click to expand...

They could start by closing the border to drug smugglers and illegal aliens. Does it make sense to keep harassing the same pilot when thousands of Mexicans cross the border illegally every day?

Wonderful how we pay the salaries of these jackasses so they can intimidate law abiding citizens.
 
Everskyward said:
You can walk away from the FAA but US Customs not so much so.
Click to expand...

I guess you're saying the FAA isn't allowed to physically prevent you from walking away from a ramp check, but you're still guilty of violating the reg that requires you to show your certificates.

If you walk away from CBP or an LEO when you are being detained, what law have you violated? (I presume there is one - just want to know what it is.) Do they have to tell you you're being detained in order to require you to remain? Alternatively, can they just grab you and hold you?
 
Jack Spectre said:
They could start by closing the border to drug smugglers and illegal aliens. Does it make sense to keep harassing the same pilot when thousands of Mexicans cross the border illegally every day?
Click to expand...
How do they, or we, know the person is innocent? We only have an internet account of this incident.
 
twdeckard said:
I don't think they need a warrant. Its a vehicle. They can search it with probable cause. Dog barked.
Click to expand...

I never stated they couldn't search the plane; I said I wouldn't consent to it.

Two different things.

Best,

Dave
 
Palmpilot said:
I guess you're saying the FAA isn't allowed to physically prevent you from walking away from a ramp check, but you're still guilty of violating the reg that requires you to show your certificates.
Click to expand...
I meant that you didn't need to let the FAA search your airplane.

Palmpilot said:
If you walk away from CBP or an LEO when you are being detained, what law have you violated? (I presume there is one - just want to know what it is.) Do they have to tell you you're being detained in order to require you to remain? Alternatively, can they just grab you and hold you?
Click to expand...
US Customs has more authority to search than other law enforcement agencies in that they don't need a warrant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

I have had the airplane that I was flying intercepted (at an airport) because they suspected drug smuggling. I let them search but they barely looked in the windows because they realized they were mistaken about what we were doing. This way way before 9/11 or the immigration furor.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I never stated they couldn't search the plane; I said I wouldn't consent to it.

Two different things.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
Certainly very different if the search uncovered something and the unconsented search was on shaky ground. In that case a good lawyer ought to be able to suppress whatever was found.
 
Everskyward said:
How do they, or we, know the person is innocent? We only have an internet account of this incident.
Click to expand...

That is easy! Unless proven guilty after due process, everyone is innocent!
 
skidoo said:
That is easy! Unless proven guilty after due process, everyone is innocent!
Click to expand...
So does that mean that law enforcement cannot search to collect evidence?

I just think it's strange that people want it both ways.
 
Everskyward said:
How do they, or we, know the person is innocent? We only have an internet account of this incident.
Click to expand...

Silly me, I thought that a basic legal principal of this country is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Oh wait, it used to be in the past but not today. Now it's "you're guilty until you prove your innocence".
 
slowjoe said:
Silly me, I thought that a basic legal principal of this country is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Oh wait, it used to be in the past but not today. Now it's "you're guilty until you prove your innocence".
Click to expand...
So maybe he's not technically "guilty" but obviously under suspicion. That's terrible because he's someone's friend and a fellow pilot. However, in other places in this country people are cheering because they can stop people for kinda sorta looking guilty. This is not SZ so I will quit here.
 
When an FAA guy says he wants to ramp check you, but is surrounded by LEO's it would be prudent to ask what the other folks are doing here. And then explain that you'll be happy to deal with them individually as they all have different roles and authorities.
The FAA guy is allowed to look at your documents, the airplane documents, and the outside of the airplane and look in the windows. That's it, unless he's a criminal investigator. Take care of him and send him on his way, THEN deal with the LEOs.
 
When are you people going to grasp the concept that this is a free country and you must do exactly as your told? I mean, your acting like there is wiggle room or something.

John
 
slowjoe said:
snip...

Oh wait, it used to be in the past but not today. Now it's "you're guilty until you prove your innocence".
Click to expand...

We will all be sorry if we allow this to become the norm and accepted.
 
John Baker said:
Too late, we already have. We have traded our freedoms for temporary security. We will end up with neither.

John
Click to expand...


We really do need to take this country back. When LEO's can use trained dogs or plant things to incriminate someone falsley, you know you've become a police state. East Germany and the STASI come to mind.
 
skidoo said:
We will all be sorry if we allow this to become the norm and accepted.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all fond of all these paramilitary get-ups with all the body armor and automatic weapons. The "war on drugs" has proven to be about as effective as prohibition was 80 years ago. If we want to get rid of these stops and searches, we need to change drug policy to prevention and treatment, rather than supply interruption. But it's political suicide to suggest such a thing...
 
Everskyward said:
I meant that you didn't need to let the FAA search your airplane.

US Customs has more authority to search than other law enforcement agencies in that they don't need a warrant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

I have had the airplane that I was flying intercepted (at an airport) because they suspected drug smuggling. I let them search but they barely looked in the windows because they realized they were mistaken about what we were doing. This way way before 9/11 or the immigration furor.
Click to expand...

From the above article:

Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security, is permitted to search travelers and their belongings at the American border without probable cause or a warrant.

I emphasize: AT THE BORDER. We are told there was no border crossing in these instances.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I emphasize: AT THE BORDER. We are told there was no border crossing in these instances.
Click to expand...
I hadn't crossed the border either when I was stopped, although they thought I had been doing suspicious things near the border. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, just making the argument that it seems people want more enforcement but only when it's the other guy.
 
weilke said:
That a well trained dog will create probable cause where there is none.
Click to expand...

You got it!

Everskyward said:
You can walk away from the FAA but US Customs not so much so. Seems like many people want more enforcement against drug smuggling and illegal aliens but when they are wrongly suspected of being the bad guy they aren't too pleased.
Click to expand...

Thats the point. The pilot being detained in this story was told it was a regular ramp check, thus he could theoretically walk a way. He wasn't told that it was also a contraban search.

Everskyward said:
So does that mean that law enforcement cannot search to collect evidence?


I just think it's strange that people want it both ways.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what it means not without a warrant or search incident to arrest or boarder search.

Dave Siciliano said:
From the above article:

Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security, is permitted to search travelers and their belongings at the American border without probable cause or a warrant.

I emphasize: AT THE BORDER. We are told there was no border crossing in these instances.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that border does not necessarily mean geographic boundry line between two countried. It could be Philadelphia International Airport as well if you are flying in from say Bermuda. Now it could not be philadelphia if you are driving in from Canada.

I belive what we are seeing here is the FAA ramp check being used as a pretext to a stop. The dog comes in and sniff and what ever the dog does the LEOs call it an alert possibly giving them the probably cause to get a warrant.
 
Anthony said:
We really do need to take this country back. When LEO's can use trained dogs or plant things to incriminate someone falsley, you know you've become a police state. East Germany and the STASI come to mind.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that using trained dogs or planting things to incriminate
someone falsely is legal here in the USA.
 
We're in complete agreement Adam. I was just citing the article posted. Of course, any time the plane will cross the border, the point of departure and arrival is subject to customs. In the instant case, it was pointed out there was no border crossing.

Also, as far as concealed carry, I would not be obligated to tell and FAA person performing a ramp check I was carrying a concealed weapon. If it was described as a ramp check, I wouldn't offer that information. At the instant an LEO began questioning me, I would offer that information--even if not armed. It appears, that is what was done.

If the dog points and that allows them to get a warrant, fine. At least a judge is now involved and I should be able to contact my attorney. I don't want to be on a ramp alone, with LEOs carrying automatic weapons obviously targeting me for some reason with no other witnesses or parties supervising and no advise from my attorney.

Best,

Dave
 
You do not need a warrant I don't care if you are US Customs or Mayberry's chief of police. This falls under the vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement as described in Carroll and hundreds of subsequent cases. Years and years ago.

What you need is a pretext to contact the person and then probable cause to search. Probable cause is determined by the officer in the field with the understanding that it will undergo judicial review eventually, one way or another. In the federal system an appropriately conducted dog search with positive indications may be all the PC you need.

So, while you may disagree whether this SHOULD be happening...ain't nobody gonna put the brakes on what is going on in your plane on the ramp except the officers own knowledge of the law and sense of professional self preservation - or a supervisor's.

This is all seperate from the question of consent.
 
alaskaflyer said:
You do not need a warrant I don't care if you are US Customs or Mayberry's chief of police. This falls under the vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement as described in Carroll and hundreds of subsequent cases. Years and years ago.

What you need is a pretext to contact the person and then probable cause to search. Probable cause is determined by the officer in the field with the understanding that it will undergo judicial review eventually, one way or another. In the federal system an appropriately conducted dog search with positive indications may be all the PC you need.

So, while you may disagree whether this SHOULD be happening...ain't nobody gonna put the brakes on what is going on in your plane on the ramp except the officers own knowledge of the law and sense of professional self preservation - or a supervisor's.

This is all seperate from the question of consent.
Click to expand...

Please be kind enough to inform us of the basis of probable cause in this instance.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Please be kind enough to inform us of the basis of probable cause in this instance.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I wasn't there. Besides the guy consented if I understand the original story correctly so the point is moot. Dog search was piling on.

I was simply disabusing some here of the notion that there would be an opportunity to sit around a judge's chambers and hash this out amongst
attorneys in advance, if the person in this scenario had not given his consent for a search.

Not for a car, a plane, a boat etc etc. This has nothing to do with customs searches, and has been the rule in the federal criminal justice system and in all states which have not taken individual legislative or judicial action to interpret their own laws seperately, for a long time. The Carroll Doctrine. I think Wikipedia has an article.
 
Trapper John said:
I'm not at all fond of all these paramilitary get-ups with all the body armor and automatic weapons. The "war on drugs" has proven to be about as effective as prohibition was 80 years ago. If we want to get rid of these stops and searches, we need to change drug policy to prevention and treatment, rather than supply interruption. But it's political suicide to suggest such a thing...
Click to expand...

Looking at the history of how nations have tried to deal with their drug problems it's pretty clear that there are only two approaches that work.

1. Legalization.

2. The death penalty for use.

Every other approach thus far has proven futile.
 
Last edited:
slowjoe said:
Silly me, I thought that a basic legal principal of this country is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Oh wait, it used to be in the past but not today. Now it's "you're guilty until you prove your innocence".
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't apply at the border. They can search and seize to their hearts content (a lot of folks have had their computers seized when they refused to allow search).

CBP also has the right to conduct stops & searches within a certain distance of a border (loosely defined as a port of entry).

And, as others have pointed out, "probable cause" is only subject to later judicial review. In this case, a dog's indication would be justifiable probable cause.

All that said, it also appears that he managed to **** them off enough that he's on a permanant list - which means that he will continue to be harassed both flying domestically and any time he crosses a border.

The only way to fix that is to get a really good attorney and pursue the government (which may stir the hornets even more).
 
wsuffa said:
... The only way to fix that is to get a really good attorney and pursue the government (which may stir the hornets even more).
Click to expand...

A letter to your Congressman (with the requisite financial contribution to his/her reelection campaign) works too. :yesnod:
 
alaskaflyer said:
You do not need a warrant I don't care if you are US Customs or Mayberry's chief of police. This falls under the vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement as described in Carroll and hundreds of subsequent cases. Years and years ago.
Click to expand...

That used to be true, but not anymore.
In Arizona v. Gant (April this year),the Supreme Court severely restricted the warrantless search of vehicles, and basically undoing the Carroll Doctrine.
We had to do a whole bunch of search and seizure training in a big hurry after that case dropped.

I think this was a jacked up stop, and as a career LEO, I will not consent to search ever, anywhere, for any reason. I am sickened by the erosion in the civil liberties of citizens over the last 60 years, and will do whatever I can to beat back the tide.

I'm not beating on the cops, and no, I don't buy the 'dropped baggie', the 'dog trained to bark' theory, and all the other junk people have thrown around.
It's lots of other stuff, like TFRs, SFRAs, the TSA and their intrusive but useless security theater, the "virtual strip search' backscatter imagers, the constant fight to protect the 2nd Amendment, the nationalization of industry, and the death of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
It's not a cop on a stop, it's the daily intrusion of the government farther and farther into the private sphere.

If this story of a citizen stopped is the biggest government issue you see, then you're not paying attention to the right things.
 
Thank you Alan. I strongly support the police. I fought for this country and strongly believe in the individual rights we as a country fought to obtain. That doesn't mean I agree with an FAA ramp check creating the need to conduct what was clearly set up to be a search all along.
I stick with what I said above. Am I being detained? If so, why. I have cooperated many a time when the police were honest and forth coming. When they are not, neither am I. And if I walked into a situation like this, I would be very defensive from step one. If they wouldn't tell me why they wanted to search my plane and have me believe it was for good cause, I would ask that they speak with my attorney.

As I said above, at the border or a contemplated crossing is completely different. These issues constantly go back and forth as the courts change, the circumstances and police usage.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I stick with what I said above. Am I being detained? If so, why. I have cooperated many a time when the police were honest and forth coming. When they are not, neither am I. And if I walked into a situation like this, I would be very defensive from step one. If they wouldn't tell me why they wanted to search my plane and have me believe it was for good cause, I would ask that they speak with my attorney.
Click to expand...

We are in violent agreement, then.

The magic words when dealing with the police are "Am I free to leave?"
If the answer's yes, then leave. If the answer's no, then ask for your attorney.

Have I contacted people we thought were up to something? Sure. I contact them and tell them right up front what's going on. You look like a person we're looking for, or someone identified your car as being involved in such-and-such, or whatever. I ask for consent to search and make no pretext of it being a regulatory contact or a "DL checkpoint" or anything else.
If I've chosen this individual to contact, then I tell them 'here's what's up'.
 
Ummm...Gant only spoke to post-arrest searching absent specific probable cause that there is evidence or contraband to be seized. Which is (or more accurately, was) only one "category" - if you will - of scenarios involving warrantless vehicle searches. Basically New York v Belton went out the window. Yes that was certainly a major change particularly for those of us doing uniformed enforcement, but the Carroll doctrine is entirely different and is very much still in place in federal jurisdiction and in all but a small handful of state and local jurisdictions.

You can ask the police to speak to your attorney, but they aren't going to. :rofl:

Look, you both are right. Asking or demanding clear clarification of your status puts the onus on the government agents to determine if they have the juice to back up what they intend to do. But if they think they do, you have no right to ask them to wait for your attorney or anyone else - they are going to do what they think they need to do and there is no requirement that they disclose the information they possess or the items they seek to you there on the ramp, runway or road. If they don't have the juice and you called their bluff, well, then you can leave.

And if it turns out that a judge decides later that they didn't have probable cause after all, for a search absent consent, you have a range of options available to you for redress, from the political to the legal.
 
I think the simple fact is (outside the border exception of course)

If asked to consent to a search, you have two choices:

  • Consent: Whatever probable cause the police had is irrelevant, and will never be tested in court.
  • Refuse: If they have probable cause, they'll still search, but at least you give your lawyer something to work with, as he can challenge PC
 
I find this all quite interesting but not only would i have not allowed them to search the aircraft, I would not have even said anything to them other than that I am carrying the weapon which is just a smart thing to do to protect them and yourself.

They cannot search without a warrant or your permission. End of story. BUT if you do that they can and will drag things out.

They probably thought you were doing a drug drop since nothing was found. Common way that criminals like to circumvent the borders to smuggle in drugs and contraband.

See this video as it explains why you do NOT talk to LEO's or volunteer any information or consent to a search under any circumstances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc



Sorry this happened to you though. Sounds like they overreacted in my opinion.
 
webdaddy said:
I find this all quite interesting but not only would i have not allowed them to search the aircraft...

They cannot search without a warrant or your permission. End of story.
Click to expand...

Let us know how that works out for you should you find yourself in that situation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top