Pilot protests customs 'check' (from AVWEB)

gkainz

gkainz

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
8,401
Location
Arvada, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Greg Kainz
This doesn't happen, does it? Dr. Bruce? :nonod: sad ...

PILOT PROTESTS CUSTOMS 'CHECK'
Baja Bush Pilots, a group representing pilots who frequently fly to Mexico, is polling members to see if any have had an encounter with Customs and Border Protection agents similar to the experience of Long Beach, Calif. pilot David Perry and his three passengers a couple of weeks ago. In a podcast interview with AVweb, Perry says he was going through his pre-start checklist for a flight to Loreto, Mexico on May 22 when his Cessna 210 was suddenly surrounded by yelling CBP agents and local airport police, weapons drawn (the Customs agents had M-16s) who ordered them out of the airplane. "They were yelling at us to put our hands on our heads," said Perry, a retired military officer who said he makes frequent flights to his second home in Loreto. What followed was almost an hour of interrogation and searches for what was apparently a "random check" according to the senior agent in charge of the operation Perry said. "I couldn't believe I was in the United States," Perry said. AVweb contacted the Los Angeles field office of Customs and Border Protection and a spokeswoman said a statement is being prepared but would not be available before our publication deadline. AVweb will carry a follow-up story on the CBP's take on the incident as soon as the statement is transmitted.
More ... http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1390-full.html#200519
 
That is quite unbelievable :nonod:


Even in Israel, where the word "security" is sacred and justifies radical methods, the armed forces would never act like this during a "routine" inspection (pointing guns and shouting at the suspects).

I guess that the TSA guys and the Customs' agents watched too many Rambo movies...

Hopefully a few heads will roll...:D
 
The terrorists have been replaces by our own government. Someone needs to rein them in. All they need is to work for a member of SECURITY of some kind and they have no limits it seems. Bob
 
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

It's been that way for a long time. I thought that was common knowledge. If you're coming into or going out of this country, the 4th Amendment has certain exceptions.

Terrorism doesn't have anything to do with it. If you want to blame something, blame the war on drugs, if anything.

Nevertheless, nothing that the border agents did was illegal or not permitted under the 4th Amendment. Them's the rules when you travel internationally, particularly if you're a pilot who "frequently" flies to the Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Nevertheless, nothing that the border agents did was illegal or not permitted under the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not "illegal" or "unconstitutional," but I'm not sure that using their weapons in a "felony stop" manner was within normal LE guidelines, even near the border, unless they had reason to think the pilot and/or passengers presented an immediate threat, e.g., they'd seen weapons or the people did not comply with directions.
 
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....
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps not "illegal" or "unconstitutional," but I'm not sure that using their weapons in a "felony stop" manner was within normal LE guidelines, even near the border, unless they had reason to think the pilot and/or passengers presented an immediate threat, e.g., they'd seen weapons or the people did not comply with directions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Note that I refrained from "not unethical" or something along those lines. :)

But, in all seriousness, if any of you are ever traveling internationally, don't be that guy who raises a stink about customs getting a little too personal - if you take it too far, as others have in the past, you'll find out that you're on the wrong side of the law.

Is it right or wrong? I don't know, and it's not my place to say. I'm just writing what the law is, like it or not.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps not "illegal" or "unconstitutional," but I'm not sure that using their weapons in a "felony stop" manner was within normal LE guidelines, even near the border, unless they had reason to think the pilot and/or passengers presented an immediate threat, e.g., they'd seen weapons or the people did not comply with directions.
Click to expand...

More details are needed, but while I can see law enforcement intercepting an aircraft arriving from a cross-border flight, intercepting a flight departing a domestic airport makes no sense unless there's evidence a crime has been committed. This would be the same thing as stopping you in your driveway because you're going to drive across the border.
 
TMetzinger said:
More details are needed, but while I can see law enforcement intercepting an aircraft arriving from a cross-border flight, intercepting a flight departing a domestic airport makes no sense unless there's evidence a crime has been committed. This would be the same thing as stopping you in your driveway because you're going to drive across the border.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Driving across the border means they have the opportunity to check you out when you stop at the border checkpoints. OTOH, airplanes don't stop at border checkpoints -- they can't be checked going out other than at the airport of departure.
 
Good point. They generally don't point guns at you at the checkpoints though.

And it raises the point - what's the point of e-APIS clearing you to go if they're going to stop you anyway?
 
TMetzinger said:
Good point. They generally don't point guns at you at the checkpoints though.
Click to expand...

In my experience, they can. Its usually someone, holding an M-16, ready to go, asking you "Orale, vato, are you 'Merican?"

And it raises the point - what's the point of e-APIS clearing you to go if they're going to stop you anyway?
Click to expand...

This.
 
We had the same thing happen to my family once. Except it was a car, and we were leaving East Germany, not the US.:confused::frown3::mad3:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

It's been that way for a long time. I thought that was common knowledge. If you're coming into or going out of this country, the 4th Amendment has certain exceptions.

Terrorism doesn't have anything to do with it. If you want to blame something, blame the war on drugs, if anything.

Nevertheless, nothing that the border agents did was illegal or not permitted under the 4th Amendment. Them's the rules when you travel internationally, particularly if you're a pilot who "frequently" flies to the Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
Click to expand...


Yes and no David. First remember that Search still must be reasonable. What happened to this one pilot was not at least in my opinion a reasonable search. Plus what about the other pilot mentioned in the article was flying to long beach from Texas. Since Texas is STILL part of the Union The boarder was in Texas not Long Beach CA. This type of behavior MUST be addressed.:mad3:
 
Just out of curiosity, is anyone else disturbed about the Internal security check points, like the on on I-10 east of El Paso? I never knew they existed until I visited New Mexico a couple of years ago, and met a grumpy border patrol agent on the way to Alamogordo at 1:00am. These things are no where near the border, and ever since then I've wondered how these checkpoints square up with the 4th amendment.
 
TMetzinger said:
Good point. They generally don't point guns at you at the checkpoints though.
Click to expand...
My point exactly as raised above. The search is one thing, the gun-pointing is quite another.
And it raises the point - what's the point of e-APIS clearing you to go if they're going to stop you anyway?
Click to expand...
eAPIS is there solely to track who's crossing the border in/out of the country, in particular, anyone on the no-fly list. The search is to determine whether you're carrying contraband. Also, not every aircraft going in/out is searched, but every manifest is checked for no-fly-list passengers. Different issues, different procedures.
 
AdamZ said:
Yes and no David. First remember that Search still must be reasonable. What happened to this one pilot was not at least in my opinion a reasonable search. Plus what about the other pilot mentioned in the article was flying to long beach from Texas. Since Texas is STILL part of the Union The boarder was in Texas not Long Beach CA. This type of behavior MUST be addressed.:mad3:
Click to expand...

No arguments as to it being unreasonable - it was. But, are you sure it has to be reasonable (it should be)? My understanding is that, if you're at a border checkpoint type area (which includes customs at airports), the 4th Amendment just isn't applicable unless they want to do something like a cavity search.
 
vontresc said:
Just out of curiosity, is anyone else disturbed about the Internal security check points, like the on on I-10 east of El Paso? I never knew they existed until I visited New Mexico a couple of years ago, and met a grumpy border patrol agent on the way to Alamogordo at 1:00am. These things are no where near the border, and ever since then I've wondered how these checkpoints square up with the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...

We've got one on the 5. Basically they just look through the windows of the cars passing by at about 10 mph. I suppose they're looking for drugs or illegals sitting in plain view?
 
Not to justify anything, but there is a push now to stop the flow of firearms from US into Mexico.
 
Ron Levy said:
eAPIS is there solely to track who's crossing the border in/out of the country, in particular, anyone on the no-fly list. The search is to determine whether you're carrying contraband. Also, not every aircraft going in/out is searched, but every manifest is checked for no-fly-list passengers. Different issues, different procedures.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder if there was a "hit" on one of the names submitted through eAPIS which of course was cleared during the contact. Someone with a similar name to ?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
No arguments as to it being unreasonable - it was. But, are you sure it has to be reasonable (it should be)? My understanding is that, if you're at a border checkpoint type area (which includes customs at airports), the 4th Amendment just isn't applicable unless they want to do something like a cavity search.
Click to expand...

It's not the search itself being questioned. It's the guns drawn and pointed when no threat was made If the vehicles with lights had approached the airplane and the people were asked to deplane without the guns being drawn I don't think anyone would have had a problem with it.

Missa
 
Missa said:
It's not the search itself being questioned. It's the guns drawn and pointed when no threat was made If the vehicles with lights had approached the airplane and the people were asked to deplane without the guns being drawn I don't think anyone would have had a problem with it.

Missa
Click to expand...

Precisely. IT's the "guilt before innocence" bit that's worrisome.
 
Missa said:
It's not the search itself being questioned. It's the guns drawn and pointed when no threat was made If the vehicles with lights had approached the airplane and the people were asked to deplane without the guns being drawn I don't think anyone would have had a problem with it.

Missa
Click to expand...

flyersfan31 said:
Precisely. IT's the "guilt before innocence" bit that's worrisome.
Click to expand...

I agree - but I'd like to see what the government's side of the story is. It might be that there was some kind of legitimate reason for that.

It also might be that there wasn't - but that's not something that rises to the level of a constitutional violation or much of anything else. Instead, it would be one of those, "seriously, is this who we give guns to" things.

I don't mean to trivialize the incident, but assuming the government was/is in the wrong, questionable uses of force are something that happen everyday. While that doesn't mean we have to tolerate them, and we shouldn't tolerate them - it also doesn't mean, "oh my god, the Constitution is falling."
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I agree - but I'd like to see what the government's side of the story is. It might be that there was some kind of legitimate reason for that.

It also might be that there wasn't - but that's not something that rises to the level of a constitutional violation or much of anything else. Instead, it would be one of those, "seriously, is this who we give guns to" things.

I don't mean to trivialize the incident, but assuming the government was/is in the wrong, questionable uses of force are something that happen everyday. While that doesn't mean we have to tolerate them, and we shouldn't tolerate them - it also doesn't mean, "oh my god, the Constitution is falling."
Click to expand...

I never said that the search was unconstituional nor should be illigal. I simply said that if approaching an aircraft with guns drawn is how customs is now operating... the terriosts have won.
 
Missa said:
I never said that the search was unconstituional nor should be illigal. I simply said that if approaching an aircraft with guns drawn is how customs is now operating... the terriosts have won.
Click to expand...

Usually there's a call/tip/complaint or some other event which causes them to behave this way.
 
Yes, there's a fella near me that had is ex call in a drug tip on him when they were going through a bitter divorce. He left Florida and they tracked him to where he landed for fuel. Confiscated his plane and proceed to have it disassembled. He was furious at them until he found out they had a tip. Then, it all came together. She was a flight attendant at the time; now, she's an attorney.

Ask Dr. Bruce about his little encounter with Customs.

I had a great one too, but they didn't draw weapons. Just treated me like Cr*p.

Not on the top of my list of decent folks. I've been shot at on more than one occasion and didn't return fire. I don't have much sympathy for those pointing automatic weapons at unarmed people...period. Draw, at the ready is one thing. Pointing at someone is directly threatening to use deadly force.

Best,

Dave
 
alaskaflyer said:
Makes me wonder if there was a "hit" on one of the names submitted through eAPIS which of course was cleared during the contact. Someone with a similar name to ?
Click to expand...

Seems unlikely. There are only about 1.1 million names on the list (as I understand it).
 
Rinker Buck in Flight of Passage. He and his brother were teenagers in teh 1960s when they were told to open up the J3 and submit to an inspection and Rinker kept saying No - #$%^&* :D

They eventually flew out, mainly because the locals surrounded them and told the Barney Fife's to leave the kids alone.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I don't have much sympathy for those pointing automatic weapons at unarmed people...period. Draw, at the ready is one thing. Pointing at someone is directly threatening to use deadly force.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

I listened to the podcast. Not enough info. To most folks on the receiving end it is the same thing :shrug:
 
I don't have a rep. who's on the transportation subcommittee or on the main committee. Those of you who have on one this list, make SURE your rep is aware of this abuse. The citizens should not take this lightly.

http://transportation.house.gov/about.aspx

And for this I got a DD-214?
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, guys, the Amtrak Police have uused gunpoint searches on folks boarding the Acela in DC headed for NY. Seriously - an armed force of 8-10 police officers, with dogs, automatic weapons, and body armor forcing passengers to submit to bag searches.

A true show of force.

Folks, these are agencies "out of control"... with no ultimate accountability. If they shoot someone, well, that person was a prospective terrorist and/or resisted. This is why resistance to the DC SFRA/ADIZ is futile. These guys know they have public opinion on their side (or else!).

And it will continue until someone reigns them in. Which is unlikely.
 
wsuffa said:
For what it's worth, guys, the Amtrak Police have uused gunpoint searches on folks boarding the Acela in DC headed for NY. Seriously - an armed force of 8-10 police officers, with dogs, automatic weapons, and body armor forcing passengers to submit to bag searches.

A true show of force.

Folks, these are agencies "out of control"... with no ultimate accountability. If they shoot someone, well, that person was a prospective terrorist and/or resisted. This is why resistance to the DC SFRA/ADIZ is futile. These guys know they have public opinion on their side (or else!).

And it will continue until someone reigns them in. Which is unlikely.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between a bunch of guys with guns and a bunch of guys with guns pointing at you.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
...
I don't have much sympathy for those pointing automatic weapons at unarmed people...period. Draw, at the ready is one thing. Pointing at someone is directly threatening to use deadly force.
Click to expand...
Back in the '50s when I was trained to use firearms, the rule was, only point a weapon at someone you intend to kill. Never intend to frighten, intimidate, or wound; only kill.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Back in the '50s when I was trained to use firearms, the rule was, only point a weapon at someone you intend to kill. Never intend to frighten, intimidate, or wound; only kill.
Click to expand...

How refreshingly quaint. :frown3:

Intimidation seems to be the name of the game now. Guilty until proven innocent, and even then, we'll keep treating you as guilty.
 
FWIW, how would you like to be the one doing the search........knowing that there could be a drug smuggler w/nothing to live for.......and you have'n a wife and kids at home. Sounds like they were a bit "over suspicious", but w/all the nut cases out there.........

Look at it from both sides is my point. Hard to play devils advocate on this one though........just a thought.

They should use water guns, w/mexico water.:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Mistakes, poor judgment, bad decisions, etc., happen every single day in all areas of law enforcement. That's how it always has been, it's how it will always be.

In the bigger scheme of things, however, think about how many contacts there are on any given day with police-types, ranging from traffic stops to gunfire.

My point is that, in the bigger scheme of things, we're not really faced with some kind of systemic problem. Government agents aren't going around abusing their authority, and we're not faced with an "oh my God, the Constitution is falling" scenario. It's utterly absurd to think otherwise.

Does that mean we have to accept mistakes when they happen? Of course not, and I wouldn't suggest it. People with bad judgment don't need to be in positions where they have the ability to affect others' lives, and errors have to be investigated/corrected so that they can be prevented in the future.

What that does mean, however, is that it's silly to attempt to draw a general picture from a few isolated incidents (and, in the actual scheme of things, they're isolated).

At any rate, what it comes down to is that none of us have any constitutionally-protected interested in not having guns drawn on us. That doesn't come anywhere close to violating any kind of constitutional principles. Is it offensive, and concerning? Sure - nobody likes staring down the wrong end of a rifle, and if you've got people whose judgment is already bad (but it's kind of hard to blame individual officers/agents if the decision came from higher up) with the fingers on the triggers....

But to suggest that there's some kind of widespread issue with police officers and other government agents routinely abusing authority or acting far outside the bounds of reasonability is so absurd that it's laughable. The concern's certainly understandable given news reports, but when those reports are viewed in light of the actual facts, it's just absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there's some kind of problem.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
But to suggest that there's some kind of widespread issue with police officers and other government agents routinely abusing authority or acting far outside the bounds of reasonability is so absurd that it's laughable.
Click to expand...
It must be nice to live in a place where the government can be trusted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top