Pilot protests customs 'check' (from AVWEB)

[steve7185W]

Re: CBP Story doesn't make sense

Does anyone know if any of this has hit the local papers? I'd like to see how the locals spin it.

 

[kkoran]

Let's guess. The pilot or one of the passengers had a name that's on the No Fly List... I

If that's the case, shouldn't the eAPIS response have said the flight was disapproved and for the pilot to contact CBP?

 

[alaskaflyer]

I'm still scratching my head and wondering what about this is so shocking, with the apparent assumption that this didn't or couldn't happen in 1999, 1989, or 1979. Change the letters on the jackets from "CBP" to "DEA."

 

[mikea]

If that's the case, shouldn't the eAPIS response have said the flight was disapproved and for the pilot to contact CBP?

Consider that the flight was LEAVING the US, not entering. What countries prevent people from LEAVING? East Germany?

 

[wsuffa]

Consider that the flight was LEAVING the US, not entering. What countries prevent people from LEAVING? East Germany?

The US. See the requirements for SecureFright and eAPIS.

 

[kkoran]

Consider that the flight was LEAVING the US, not entering. What countries prevent people from LEAVING? East Germany?

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States of America.

 

[Geico266]

What's funny is that this is acceptable to do to Americans, but god forbid we actually do the same to stop illegals from coming into America....

Now there is a novel idea! Catch people breaking the law!

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Consider that the flight was LEAVING the US, not entering. What countries prevent people from LEAVING? East Germany?

The objective is to prevent those who have their name (or who have a name similar to someone) on the list from flying.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I'm still scratching my head and wondering what about this is so shocking, with the apparent assumption that this didn't or couldn't happen in 1999, 1989, or 1979. Change the letters on the jackets from "CBP" to "DEA."

Agreed.

 

[alaskaflyer]

What's funny is that this is acceptable to do to Americans, but god forbid we actually do the same to stop illegals from coming into America....

No what's funny (not so much actually) is that pilots joined everyone else on the right in demanding better security on the border to stop dem ill eagles and 'terrists, and now pee their pants over the fact that these measures might actually apply to themselves too.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Consider that the flight was LEAVING the US, not entering. What countries prevent people from LEAVING?

This. All the other screaming about this situation is empty noise IMO. Do we have to now petition our own government to travel outside the country? It ain't the checks and inspections. It's eAPIS, Secureflight, outbound security notam for cross-border operations etc.

 

[tdager]

No what's funny (not so much actually) is that pilots joined everyone else on the right in demanding better security on the border to stop dem ill eagles and 'terrists, and now pee their pants over the fact that these measures might actually apply to themselves too.

Really? I am neither a terrorist, nor an illegal. Thus I do not see how those measures might "actually apply" to myself.

Yes I do expect better competence from our law enforcement to know the difference.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Yes I do expect better competence from our law enforcement to know the difference.

Our law enforcement are not the root of the problem here, they are simply the tip of the sword wielded - wait for it - by our own **** taxpayers.

I DON't KNOW why outbound checks seem to be so important though I am familiar with the legal mechanisms by which they are being instituted. But we all called for our leaders to "DO SOMETHING" about unsecured borders. Well, by gosh, they are doing it.

 

[Everskyward]

Consider that the flight was LEAVING the US, not entering. What countries prevent people from LEAVING? East Germany?

I think we have always tried to stop fugitives from leaving the country. We have done APIS and now eAPIS for quite a while since we are a commercial operator, and haven't had any problems with it. To my knowledge there have been no instances where one of our airplanes was searched on an outbound flight.

 

[flyersfan31]

No what's funny (not so much actually) is that pilots joined everyone else on the right in demanding better security on the border to stop dem ill eagles and 'terrists, and now pee their pants over the fact that these measures might actually apply to themselves too.

Huh? Nothing like a sweeping generalization and baseless allegation to make an argument!

 

[alaskaflyer]

Huh? Nothing like a sweeping generalization and baseless allegation to make an argument!

Baseless? Go read the archives of the Spin Zone.

 

[flyersfan31]

Baseless? Go read the archives of the Spin Zone.

SpinZone is where such baseless, sweeping allegations belong.

I'll say this. People were concerned about border security. I believe measures like having gun-wavin' thugs keeping people from LEAVING our country go FAR beyond what the American people wanted. Right wing or left wing.

Thus far I have seen NO action by govt, left wing or otherwise, to rein in the reign of terror.

This crap has no place in the "land of the free, home of the brave."

 

[alaskaflyer]

SpinZone is where such baseless, sweeping allegations belong.

I'll say this. People were concerned about border security. I believe measures like having gun-wavin' thugs keeping people from LEAVING our country go FAR beyond what the American people wanted.

Says you

Every person shivering in their easy chairs about them 'terrists sneakin' into the country, every slob or professor screaming aboout illegal immigration, every supply-side war on drugs proponent...every one of them marched in lockstep down the road together to this result :shrug:

As to "gun-waving thugs": we have an interview from Mr. baja bush pilot, ESQUIRE and not much else about that.

 

[AuntPeggy]

No what's funny (not so much actually) is that pilots joined everyone else on the right in demanding better security on the border to stop dem ill eagles and 'terrists, and now pee their pants over the fact that these measures might actually apply to themselves too.

Kinda rude for Hangar Talk, dontcha think?

 

[alaskaflyer]

Kinda rude for Hangar Talk, dontcha think?

Well, I didn't mean to be rude, and for using the word "pee" I apologize. And I meant "some" pilots. But you are right My point is that this is an aviation subject because it is impacting us directly, but it should be taken in context with the greater homeland security picture I think.

 

[flyersfan31]

Says you

I should know!

Every person shivering in their easy chairs about them 'terrists sneakin' into the country, every slob or professor screaming aboout illegal immigration, every supply-side war on drugs proponent...every one of them marched in lockstep down the road together to this result :shrug:

I disagree. No need for me to pounce, though. Sorry.

As to "gun-waving thugs": we have an interview from Mr. baja bush pilot, ESQUIRE and not much else about that.

True. But it's easy to believe.

 

[kkoran]

Can anyone point to the legal authority for searches of aircraft/vehicles/vessels/people departing the US? I can find stuff pertaining to arrivals to the US in 19 CFR § 162.

 

[Clark1961]

As to "gun-waving thugs": we have an interview from Mr. baja bush pilot, ESQUIRE and not much else about that.

That's a rather thin misdirection from one who claims to be clever. The CBP admitted they asked the LBPD to have drawn guns.

Try to do better.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Can anyone point to the legal authority for searches of aircraft/vehicles/vessels/people departing the US? I can find stuff pertaining to arrivals to the US in 19 CFR § 162.

Don't kill the messenger Hold on to your hats folks:

31 USC § 5316. Reports on exporting and importing monetary instruments

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person or an agent or bailee of the person shall file a report under subsection (b) of this section when the person, agent, or bailee knowingly—
(1) transports, is about to transport, or has transported, monetary instruments of more than $10,000 at one time— (A) from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States; or
(B) to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States; or
(2) receives monetary instruments of more than $10,000 at one time transported into the United States from or through a place outside the United States.


(b) A report under this section shall be filed at the time and place the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes. The report shall contain the following information to the extent the Secretary prescribes:
(1) the legal capacity in which the person filing the report is acting.
(2) the origin, destination, and route of the monetary instruments.
(3) when the monetary instruments are not legally and beneficially owned by the person transporting the instruments, or if the person transporting the instruments personally is not going to use them, the identity of the person that gave the instruments to the person transporting them, the identity of the person who is to receive them, or both.
(4) the amount and kind of monetary instruments transported.
(5) additional information.

31 USC § 5317. Search and forfeiture of monetary instruments

(b) Searches at Border.— For purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of section 5316, a customs officer may stop and search, at the border and without a search warrant, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance, any envelope or other container, and any person entering or departing from the United States.

​

And for court cases involving the above:

US v. Hernandez-Salazar "Section 5317(b) is constitutional" Ninth Circuit.

US v. Ezeiruaku "The district court determined that there was no justification for applying the border search exception to outgoing searches. We disagree, and for the reasons that follow, will reverse." Third Circuit.

US v. Stanley "Thus both incoming and outgoing border-crossing searches have several features in common: (1) the government is interested in protecting some interest of United States citizens, such as restriction of illicit international drug trade, (2) there is a likelihood of smuggling attempts at the border, (3) there is difficulty in detecting drug smuggling, (4) the individual is on notice that his privacy may be invaded when he crosses the border, and (5) he will be searched only because of his membership in a morally neutral class.
Although this may be an extension of present law, the similarity of purpose, rationale, and effect between the two types of border searches compels us to hold that the search here was proper." Ninth Circuit.

​

 

[alaskaflyer]

That's a rather thin misdirection from one who claims to be clever. The CBP admitted they asked the LBPD to have drawn guns.

Try to do better.

Cleverness has nothing to do with it. The only misdirection comes from those who yell about "gun-waving" and "brandishing." OK, how 'bout this: guns drawn/=gun waving.

 

[wsuffa]

We are getting dangerously close to having to move this thread about "administrative convenience" to Spin Zone....

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Don't kill the messenger Hold on to your hats folks:

31 USC § 5316. Reports on exporting and importing monetary instruments

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person or an agent or bailee of the person shall file a report under subsection (b) of this section when the person, agent, or bailee knowingly—
(1) transports, is about to transport, or has transported, monetary instruments of more than $10,000 at one time— (A) from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States; or
(B) to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States; or
(2) receives monetary instruments of more than $10,000 at one time transported into the United States from or through a place outside the United States.


(b) A report under this section shall be filed at the time and place the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes. The report shall contain the following information to the extent the Secretary prescribes:
(1) the legal capacity in which the person filing the report is acting.
(2) the origin, destination, and route of the monetary instruments.
(3) when the monetary instruments are not legally and beneficially owned by the person transporting the instruments, or if the person transporting the instruments personally is not going to use them, the identity of the person that gave the instruments to the person transporting them, the identity of the person who is to receive them, or both.
(4) the amount and kind of monetary instruments transported.
(5) additional information.

31 USC § 5317. Search and forfeiture of monetary instruments

(b) Searches at Border.— For purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of section 5316, a customs officer may stop and search, at the border and without a search warrant, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance, any envelope or other container, and any person entering or departing from the United States.

​

And for court cases involving the above:

US v. Hernandez-Salazar "Section 5317(b) is constitutional" Ninth Circuit.

US v. Ezeiruaku "The district court determined that there was no justification for applying the border search exception to outgoing searches. We disagree, and for the reasons that follow, will reverse." Third Circuit.

US v. Stanley "Thus both incoming and outgoing border-crossing searches have several features in common: (1) the government is interested in protecting some interest of United States citizens, such as restriction of illicit international drug trade, (2) there is a likelihood of smuggling attempts at the border, (3) there is difficulty in detecting drug smuggling, (4) the individual is on notice that his privacy may be invaded when he crosses the border, and (5) he will be searched only because of his membership in a morally neutral class.
Although this may be an extension of present law, the similarity of purpose, rationale, and effect between the two types of border searches compels us to hold that the search here was proper." Ninth Circuit.

​

As a matter of more generality, the 4th Amendment just isn't particularly applicable at the border.

What that means is that if customs wants to go through your stuff, custom gets to go through your stuff. Period.

It's been that way for decades, so nobody can really claim to be surprised by it....

 

[Clark1961]

Cleverness has nothing to do with it. The only misdirection comes from those who yell about "gun-waving" and "brandishing." OK, how 'bout this: guns drawn/=gun waving.

You have offered misdirection when you neglect to include the additional information provided by the CBP while claiming then only information is from the pilot.

Furthermore, drawing a gun and pointing it is by definition brandishing.

As I said before, do try to do better.

 

[alaskaflyer]

You have offered misdirection when you neglect to include the additional information provided by the CBP while claiming then only information is from the pilot.

Furthermore, drawing a gun and pointing it is by definition brandishing.

As I said before, do try to do better.

Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure that without even looking at the CBP statement again I can feel confident that they didn't mention anything about gun-waving thugs, which is what I was specifically talking about. Secondly, where in the additional information from CBP does it say that anyone pointed anything anywhere other than at inanimate objects? It said weapons were drawn. I can draw my weapon and have it pointed at the ground, I can have it at a low ready, or I can have it pointed at persons. The last, yes, is brandishing I suppose. I personally wouldn't characterize the first two scenarios as such, and neither arguably would a dictionary.

 

[flyersfan31]

Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure that without even looking at the CBP statement again I can feel confident that they didn't mention anything about gun-waving thugs, which is what I was specifically talking about. Secondly, where in the additional information from CBP does it say that anyone pointed anything anywhere other than at inanimate objects? It said weapons were drawn. I can draw my weapon and have it pointed at the ground, I can have it at a low ready, or I can have it pointed at persons. The last, yes, is brandishing I suppose. I personally wouldn't characterize the first two scenarios as such, and neither arguably would a dictionary.

I guess the problem I have is with the drawn weps. I know your perspective differs, kevlar vest or no kevlar vest, and I can understand that. It just concerns me that we've moved to a paradigm that accepts weps drawn as the default scenario. Mayhaps I'm wrong, but it sure seems that way.

My sensitivity probably stems from my first hand experience of watching DDR border guards approach our car, a VW microbus filled with kids, with submachine guns at the ready and subsequently thrust in my father's face through the open window. Why? Because we were leaving East Germany. We had Pennslyvania license plates on the car, and US passports. That was enough to slow us for several hours on the Polish and the BRD boders.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Really? I am neither a terrorist...

I am familiar with the legal mechanisms ...

I should know!...

You have offered misdirection ...

Isn't this thread about TSA?

 

[Clark1961]

Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure that without even looking at the CBP statement again I can feel confident that they didn't mention anything about gun-waving thugs, which is what I was specifically talking about. Secondly, where in the additional information from CBP does it say that anyone pointed anything anywhere other than at inanimate objects? It said weapons were drawn. I can draw my weapon and have it pointed at the ground, I can have it at a low ready, or I can have it pointed at persons. The last, yes, is brandishing I suppose. I personally wouldn't characterize the first two scenarios as such, and neither arguably would a dictionary.

Of course CBP won't admit to status as gun-waving thugs. They did admit to drawn weapons and that supports what the pilot stated. Now consider that if I show a gun to someone while in a confrontation then I could reasonably be charged with brandishing. You should know this simple fact. The net result is the CBP was involved in a brandishing situation. From the perspective of the folks on the receiving end, well, the description of gun-waving thugs is accurate.

I'm sorry you can't disassociate yourself from your LEO perspective long enough to admit facts. It's really just too bad.

Your misdirections are paper thin and apparent to all. As I have said three times now, do try to do better. Take my advice to heart.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure that without even looking at the CBP statement again I can feel confident that they didn't mention anything about gun-waving thugs, which is what I was specifically talking about. Secondly, where in the additional information from CBP does it say that anyone pointed anything anywhere other than at inanimate objects? It said weapons were drawn. I can draw my weapon and have it pointed at the ground, I can have it at a low ready, or I can have it pointed at persons. The last, yes, is brandishing I suppose. I personally wouldn't characterize the first two scenarios as such, and neither arguably would a dictionary.

I've always thought of brandishing as someone holding a gun in a manner that suggests, "yeah, that's right, I've got a gun."

If I'm the person describing a situation, if I say a gun was "brandished," I mean that people were waving guns around like maniacs. In other words, saber-rattling in a reckless kind of way.

Again, if I'm the person describing a situation, if a person has a gun pointed at me, I say, "that guy pointed a gun at my chest."

The dictionary agrees with me, I think.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...They did admit to drawn weapons and that supports what the pilot stated. Now consider that if I show a gun to someone while in a confrontation then I could reasonably be charged with brandishing. ....

Consider also that the common definition of a word is generally quite different from the legal definition/application of a word.

For instance, to utter, in the common sense, means to make a sound or to say something. In the legal sense, it means to pass a bad check.

And, there is a huge, HUGE, HUGE difference between "drawn" weapons and a description, by a layperson (and that person is a layperson, simply because he cites the 4th Amendment in a situation where the 4th Amendment is particularly applicable), of "brandished" weapons.

Big difference there, and if you can't see it, you're either unfamiliar with the use of the term brandishing or being purposefully obtuse.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I guess the problem I have is with the drawn weps. I know your perspective differs, kevlar vest or no kevlar vest, and I can understand that. It just concerns me that we've moved to a paradigm that accepts weps drawn as the default scenario. Mayhaps I'm wrong, but it sure seems that way.

My sensitivity probably stems from my first hand experience of watching DDR border guards approach our car, a VW microbus filled with kids, with submachine guns at the ready and subsequently thrust in my father's face through the open window. Why? Because we were leaving East Germany. We had Pennslyvania license plates on the car, and US passports. That was enough to slow us for several hours on the Polish and the BRD boders.

Do we know that this was the "default" scenario, assuming such a situation ever exists in a law enforcement setting?

For instance, do we know that there wasn't a reliable tip to the people involved that the airplane was loaded with drugs and guns?

 

[alaskaflyer]

Consider also that the common definition of a word is generally quite different from the legal definition/application of a word.

For instance, to utter, in the common sense, means to make a sound or to say something. In the legal sense, it means to pass a bad check.

And, there is a huge, HUGE, HUGE difference between "drawn" weapons and a description, by a layperson (and that person is a layperson, simply because he cites the 4th Amendment in a situation where the 4th Amendment is particularly applicable), of "brandished" weapons.

Big difference there, and if you can't see it, you're either unfamiliar with the use of the term brandishing or being purposefully obtuse.

Don't be thick, David. Try harder to fall in line here, because there is only one possible version of perceived events: that of the future plaintiffs. Apparently

 

[alaskaflyer]

Isn't this thread about TSA?

Um...well, actually, no, it has nothing at all to do with the TSA specifically

 

[alaskaflyer]

I'm sorry you can't disassociate yourself from your LEO perspective long enough to admit facts. It's really just too bad.

Your misdirections are paper thin and apparent to all. As I have said three times now, do try to do better. Take my advice to heart.

I see few verifiable facts in this story. I'm sorry you cannot dissassociate yourself from your status as a pilot long enough to recognize this situation for what it is, and to take someone else's opinion - expert or not - as a contribution to the discussion instead of some affront. But yes, I will certainly give your advice all due consideration.

 

[flyersfan31]

Do we know that this was the "default" scenario, assuming such a situation ever exists in a law enforcement setting?

Dunno. I said it "seems" that way. You have to understand that my perspective is that of an innocent person. I'm never going to haul drugs or commit terrorist acts. No need to point a gun at me, just ask your questions and move on. I do understand that not everyone encountered by law enforcement is like me.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Consider also that the common definition of a word is generally quite different from the legal definition/application of a word.

For instance, to utter, in the common sense, means to make a sound or to say something. In the legal sense, it means to pass a bad check.

And, there is a huge, HUGE, HUGE difference between "drawn" weapons and a description, by a layperson (and that person is a layperson, simply because he cites the 4th Amendment in a situation where the 4th Amendment is particularly applicable), of "brandished" weapons.

Big difference there, and if you can't see it, you're either unfamiliar with the use of the term brandishing or being purposefully obtuse.

By "is," I meant "isn't."