Police Ramp Checks

gprellwitz said:
Except in Illinois, the state in which you reside, where it is a FELONY to record a LEO in their duties!:mad2:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ous_illinois_law_that_makes_it_a_felony_.html

This hasn't passed both houses and the governor yet: http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/bill-to-allow-recording-of-police.html
Click to expand...

That does seem odd that LEO's can record the public on their dash cams using video and audio and that is PERFECTLY legal but the public does the exact same thing and its a Felony .:dunno::dunno:.

And, to take it one step further... When anyone calls the police on the regular phone lines or dials 911 , all those calls are recorded... And there is NO message that warns the public of that recording. :nono:
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
That does seen odd that LEO's can record the public on their dash cams using video and audio and that is PERFECTLY legal but the public does the exact same thing and its a Felony .:dunno::dunno:.

And, to take it one step further... When anyone calls the police on the regular phone lines or dials 911 , all those calls are recorded... And there is NO message that warns the public of that recording. :nono:
Click to expand...
You missed the most important word in the section you quoted: Illinois
:yikes:
 
N801BH said:
And, to take it one step further... When anyone calls the police on the regular phone lines or dials 911 , all those calls are recorded... And there is NO message that warns the public of that recording. :nono:
Click to expand...

Usually you'll hear any annoying beep about every 15 seconds, that is supposed to be the 'warning' that you're being recorded. And anyone that doesn't know that 911 lines are recorded? not so bright.
 
DeeG said:
Usually you'll hear any annoying beep about every 15 seconds, that is supposed to be the 'warning' that you're being recorded. And anyone that doesn't know that 911 lines are recorded? not so bright.
Click to expand...

Bright or not... Disclosure is the LAW...... Or not..:dunno:
 
Last edited:
DeeG said:
Usually you'll hear any annoying beep about every 15 seconds, that is supposed to be the 'warning' that you're being recorded. And anyone that doesn't know that 911 lines are recorded? not so bright.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it.

seeing as that is what you do.

And we are grateful for you being there when we need ya.
 
Ron Levy said:
LEO's do not have Federal authority to do a ramp inspection the same as the FAA, but they do have the authority under 14 CFR 61.3(l)(3) to require you to present your pilot certificate, medical certificate, and photo ID for inspection at any time.
Click to expand...

This is correct, but most states have state laws that require pilots to submit all their Federal issued certificates, etc. to LEO's and some states even require the same to be displayed to the "Airport Manager" under and have severe penalties for not complying. A former FAA Inspector has written an entire book about ramp inspections documenting various violations found during the inspections..."Surviving an FAA Ramp Inspection." available on Amazon.com
 
Ron Levy said:
Not many. However, I'll bet they all know what "refusal to comply" (or whatever they call it in your state) is, and while the result of that does not involve the FAA (at least, not until you have to fill out your next 8500-8), it usually involves handcuffs and may involve a night in the can with Bubba.:hairraise:
Click to expand...

Unless there exists some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity law enforcement officers can't force you to comply. That whole probable cause thing is important to restrict the ability of LEO to search or detain. They do not have the authority to conduct a warrantless search of our aircraft unless there are some very specific legal standards being met. Ask to see my ID sure thing. Want to search my airplane show me the warrant.

And just to clarify a bit...ramp checks are normal ops. What has my feathers ruffled up a bit is the trend of LEO stops without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion where pilots are coerced into giving search consent. Many cases reported where stops were treated as high risk felony stops (guns out and aimed at the pilots) Not a good situation IMO.
 
Last edited:
Some good things came out of the Hoover persecution.

Now as an old police surgeon let me give you some advice.
When a LEO asks you to show your license, do so.
(it is a lawful order not a request)
Don't waste your breath arguing. If you intend to disagree simply say 'I will be contesting this in court' and hand him your documents.
You can take it up in a court room later.

Now, my personal advice about the FAA.
If it is an inspector demanding that you stop what you are doing and let him paw through your documents - tell him that you do not have time for him, to send a letter requesting to examine your documents and your attorney will arrange a time and place - and then walk away.
I know that some on here will bristle at this advice because their 'authority' is being dissed.
Tough rocks.
One thing about being around tough old street cops is I learned the difference between a lawful order and administrative foo foo.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Unless there exists some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity law enforcement officers can't force you to comply.
Click to expand...
With a request to present your pilot documents? 14 CFR 61.3 gives them all the authority they need to do that any time they feel like it.

With a request to search your aircraft? That's another story governed by the 4th Amendment, and reasonable suspicion alone is not sufficient -- probable cause is required.
 
Dr. O said:
Now, my personal advice about the FAA.
If it is an inspector demanding that you stop what you are doing and let him paw through your documents - tell him that you do not have time for him, to send a letter requesting to examine your documents and your attorney will arrange a time and place - and then walk away.
Click to expand...
If you do that, you will have violated 14 CFR 61.3, and the letter you receive after that will most likely be from the Regional Counsel proposing a suspension of your pilot certificate. While FAA Order 8900.1 tells Inspectors to consider any pilot request to delay a Part 91 due to press of time, there is nothing in the regulations allowing you to refuse to comply on the spot if an FAA Inspector wants to see any pilot document you are legally required to have in your personal possession at that time (e.g., just getting out of an airplane you just landed) and the Inspector chooses not to accede to your request for delay.
 
Ron Levy said:
With a request to present your pilot documents? 14 CFR 61.3 gives them all the authority they need to do that any time they feel like it.

With a request to search your aircraft? That's another story governed by the 4th Amendment, and reasonable suspicion alone is not sufficient -- probable cause is required.
Click to expand...

Certificates, yes, anytime they ask. Search of the person reasonable suspicion is enough, reference the Terry stop you mentioned earlier. But the articulation for reasonable suspicion has to meet the objective observer standard. The airplane or anything inside of it requires probable cause and a warrant. Warrantless search would require the probable cause along with exigent circumstances.
 
In 55 years of flying I've never had any police do or say anything to me other than one who asked, when I walked in the resturant at the field if he could look at it. I said sure and we walked back out to it. Let him sit in it. It was a Stearman. He got a big kick out of it. I've always been glad their around.
 
Juniorwalker said:
This is correct, but most states have state laws that require pilots to submit all their Federal issued certificates, etc. to LEO's and some states even require the same to be displayed to the "Airport Manager" under and have severe penalties for not complying. A former FAA Inspector has written an entire book about ramp inspections documenting various violations found during the inspections..."Surviving an FAA Ramp Inspection." available on Amazon.com
Click to expand...

Larry,

Go to the book section, give a nice little write up of your book and then tell people where they can buy it.

Will be a bit more effective doing it that way rather than this. :rolleyes:
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Certificates, yes, anytime they ask. Search of the person reasonable suspicion is enough, reference the Terry stop you mentioned earlier. But the articulation for reasonable suspicion has to meet the objective observer standard. The airplane or anything inside of it requires probable cause and a warrant. Warrantless search would require the probable cause along with exigent circumstances.
Click to expand...

Well, they can look through the windows as part of the "plain sight" exception.

Vehicles (and I presume aircraft would qualify here) generally don't need warrants at all, probable cause, yes, warrants, no. And no "exigent circumstances" needed.
 
As a law enforcement officer that spends far more time at the airport than most I am pretty comfortable in saying that unless the feds call and ask for some help with a particular case the cops aren't likely to show up at the airport and cause problems with anyone. Aircraft operations is just out of the realm of what officers are tasked with doing on a daily basis.

I have asked to see documents of exactly one pilot in my life. He flew the pattern well under pattern altitude, came in way too hot and landed about half way down the field, and then looked like a driver I would stop for DUI during the taxi to parking. I was honestly concerned that he was either unlicensed or under the influence. Turned out the guy was just dangerous. Low time pilot that had bought a light sport plane and was flying it home. Made me glad I'd stopped by the airport during my lunch break to help a buddy though... the look on his face when he saw me was priceless.
 
If you dig through the NTSB Orders on appeals of FAA enforcement cases, you'll find more than a few cases where a local LEO was first on scene when a pilot was under suspicion of either inebriation or a security violation and started by asking for the pilot's FAA documents. I've seen unofficial write-ups of pilots landing at non-towered airports late at night and being met by a local LEO on routine airport security patrol and asked for pilot documents. However, I've never heard of a local LEO just showing up at an airport during normal operations with no other reason to be there and asking pilots for their FAA documents.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you dig through the NTSB Orders on appeals of FAA enforcement cases, you'll find more than a few cases where a local LEO was first on scene when a pilot was under suspicion of either inebriation or a security violation and started by asking for the pilot's FAA documents. I've seen unofficial write-ups of pilots landing at non-towered airports late at night and being met by a local LEO on routine airport security patrol and asked for pilot documents. However, I've never heard of a local LEO just showing up at an airport during normal operations with no other reason to be there and asking pilots for their FAA documents.
Click to expand...

I've had a LEO confront me once after landing - it was at a very rural airport at roughly 3am. He did not ask to see any documents and he was satisfied after about 20 seconds of conversation. I have no idea if him showing up was related to me diverting twice on that IFR flight followed by a botched visual approach followed by a RNAV to minimums.
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
Well, they can look through the windows as part of the "plain sight" exception.



Vehicles (and I presume aircraft would qualify here) generally don't need warrants at all, probable cause, yes, warrants, no. And no "exigent circumstances" needed.
Click to expand...


Some states either by law or by precedent might require that of state officers, Alaska being one (sort of.) Have no idea about NC. But for Feds you are precisely correct.
 
WornOutShooter said:
As a law enforcement officer that spends far more time at the airport than most I am pretty comfortable in saying that unless the feds call and ask for some help with a particular case the cops aren't likely to show up at the airport and cause problems with anyone. Aircraft operations is just out of the realm of what officers are tasked with doing on a daily basis.

I have asked to see documents of exactly one pilot in my life. He flew the pattern well under pattern altitude, came in way too hot and landed about half way down the field, and then looked like a driver I would stop for DUI during the taxi to parking. I was honestly concerned that he was either unlicensed or under the influence. Turned out the guy was just dangerous. Low time pilot that had bought a light sport plane and was flying it home. Made me glad I'd stopped by the airport during my lunch break to help a buddy though... the look on his face when he saw me was priceless.
Click to expand...

Was that a lawful stop?

Seriously, are police trained in how to spot a Drunk Pilot?

The above post makes me nervous. I've salvaged some landings in my day. Wouldn't want the Po-Po showing up every time someone bounced one. AFAIK landing like a tool isn't against the law.
 
bartmc said:
Was that a lawful stop?

Seriously, are police trained in how to spot a Drunk Pilot?

The above post makes me nervous. I've salvaged some landings in my day. Wouldn't want the Po-Po showing up every time someone bounced one. AFAIK landing like a tool isn't against the law.
Click to expand...

Just another "tool" in their box for using "PROBABLE CAUSE" as an excuse to stop and hassle an honest citizen......:yes::eek:

And I am right with you on the " makes me nervous" comment...
 
bartmc said:
Seriously, are police trained in how to spot a Drunk Pilot?
Click to expand...
When a pilot lands his plane on the street next to the airport, and the LEO who shows up to investigate the event smells alcohol on the pilot's breath, I can hardly see where special training is needed to "spot a Drunk Pilot." Yes, that really happened in Annapolis MD a few years ago. Or crashing 75 feet short of the runway and the LEO who shows up smells alcohol on the pilot's breath. Or landing as PIC and walking into customs with alcohol on your breath. Or any of the other similar cases in the NTSB Orders file regarding LEO's being the ones to identify a pilot operating an aircraft under the influence of alcohol (search on violations of 91.17 for a sample cases). None of those have ever been overturned on the argument that the LEO's lack the training necessary to "spot a Drunk Pilot."
 
bartmc said:
Was that a lawful stop?

Seriously, are police trained in how to spot a Drunk Pilot?

The above post makes me nervous. I've salvaged some landings in my day. Wouldn't want the Po-Po showing up every time someone bounced one. AFAIK landing like a tool isn't against the law.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
When a pilot lands his plane on the street next to the airport, and the LEO who shows up to investigate the event smells alcohol on the pilot's breath, I can hardly see where special training is needed to "spot a Drunk Pilot." Yes, that really happened in Annapolis MD a few years ago. Or crashing 75 feet short of the runway and the LEO who shows up smells alcohol on the pilot's breath. Or landing as PIC and walking into customs with alcohol on your breath. Or any of the other similar cases in the NTSB Orders file regarding LEO's being the ones to identify a pilot operating an aircraft under the influence of alcohol (search on violations of 91.17 for a sample cases). None of those have ever been overturned on the argument that the LEO's lack the training necessary to "spot a Drunk Pilot."
Click to expand...

Cute spin......................

But it does not reflect the facts of the above post by the LEO...:nonod:
 
Ron Levy said:
When a pilot lands his plane on the street next to the airport, and the LEO who shows up to investigate the event smells alcohol on the pilot's breath, I can hardly see where special training is needed to "spot a Drunk Pilot." Yes, that really happened in Annapolis MD a few years ago. Or crashing 75 feet short of the runway and the LEO who shows up smells alcohol on the pilot's breath. Or landing as PIC and walking into customs with alcohol on your breath. Or any of the other similar cases in the NTSB Orders file regarding LEO's being the ones to identify a pilot operating an aircraft under the influence of alcohol (search on violations of 91.17 for a sample cases). None of those have ever been overturned on the argument that the LEO's lack the training necessary to "spot a Drunk Pilot."
Click to expand...

Yes, but does just seeing a landing that isn't up to your standards…. is that enough for a LEO to go question someone and ask for their paperwork?

Sure the poster above is a pilot, but AFAIK all that bestows upon him is the power rib the guy at the gas pump about his "full currency" landing. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
And in the above post, there was no arrest or charge of drunk flying. So what's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is...... it was an ILLEGAL stop based on a LEO's opinion of a bad landing....


Your turn sir......:D
 
bartmc said:
Was that a lawful stop?

Seriously, are police trained in how to spot a Drunk Pilot?

The above post makes me nervous. I've salvaged some landings in my day. Wouldn't want the Po-Po showing up every time someone bounced one. AFAIK landing like a tool isn't against the law.
Click to expand...
I think what was implied is he saw something that was unusual and checked it out. That's what we all expect the police to do. Nothing special, just a bit of caution. If the guy was indeed intoxicated, I'm sure you wouldn't of had an issue.
My problem, and I think most would agree, is when they drag you out at gunpoint LIKE you were a criminal without any reason. Just because I like flying over open country at 500 feet IS definitely NOT a good reason.
 
bartmc said:
Yes, but does just seeing a landing that isn't up to your standards…. is that enough for a LEO to go question someone and ask for their paperwork?
Click to expand...
I don't know of any legal prohibition against, and I have no concern over, an LEO who sees some flying that concerns him/her walking up to the pilot after the landing and saying "Hello, welcome to Friendlytown Airport," and then seeing if the pilot reeks of alcohol or otherwise then acts in a manner indicating being under the influence -- something which any police officer is well-trained to do. And since violation of 14 CFR 91.17 is an administrative rather than criminal law manner, the normal requirements for probable cause do not apply to any ensuing FAA action.
 
N801BH said:
My point is...... it was an ILLEGAL stop based on a LEO's opinion of a bad landing....


Your turn sir......:D
Click to expand...
If the LEO were to detain the pilot merely on the basis of the bad flying, I would agree. However, if the LEO observes subsequent behavior or other plain-sight (or plain-smell) signs that a pilot who just landed is intoxicated, there would be no legal barrier of which I am aware for the LEO to then proceed with a check of the pilot's documents. In any event, 14 CFR 61.3 has requirement for any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion for any of the authorized persons to require presentation of one's pilot documents, only the knowledge that the person is, was, or is about to act as a required pilot crewmember.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't know of any legal prohibition against, and I have no concern over, an LEO who sees some flying that concerns him/her walking up to the pilot after the landing and saying "Hello, welcome to Friendlytown Airport," and then seeing if the pilot reeks of alcohol or otherwise then acts in a manner indicating being under the influence -- something which any police officer is well-trained to do. And since violation of 14 CFR 91.17 is an administrative rather than criminal law manner, the normal requirements for probable cause do not apply to any ensuing FAA action.
Click to expand...

If I'm driving my car a long and the cop pulls me over for no reason (and yes, I've been pulled over for no reason, fought it in court and won, without a lawyer. I was guilty of driving an old truck late on halloween night). Even if I'm 0.38 BAC drunk, if video evidence shows that I broke no laws then the case gets tossed as an illegal stop.

So, it makes me wonder under what authority the poster above stopped the guy and asked for his paperwork?
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If the LEO were to detain the pilot merely on the basis of the bad flying, I would agree. However, if the LEO observes subsequent behavior or other plain-sight (or plain-smell) signs that a pilot who just landed is intoxicated, there would be no legal barrier of which I am aware for the LEO to then proceed with a check of the pilot's documents. In any event, 14 CFR 61.3 has requirement for any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion for any of the authorized persons to require presentation of one's pilot documents, only the knowledge that the person is, was, or is about to act as a required pilot crewmember.
Click to expand...

I agree with all you said..... Requesting paperwork, documents and other stuff when a simple conversation to smell the pilots breath would have been the legal thing to do.... IMHO....
 
bartmc said:
If I'm driving my car a long and the cop pulls me over for no reason (and yes, I've been pulled over for no reason, fought it in court and won, without a lawyer. I was guilty of driving an old truck late on halloween night). Even if I'm 0.38 BAC drunk, if video evidence shows that I broke no laws then the case gets tossed as an illegal stop.

So, it makes me wonder under what authority the poster above stopped the guy and asked for his paperwork?
Click to expand...
He didn't "stop the guy." He merely approached the pilot after landing and observed the pilot's behavior. First, there is no requirement in the law for probable cause before anyone authorized under 61.3 to request presentation of one's pilot documents. Second, an FAA enforcement proceeding is an administrative action, not a criminal prosecution, and the protections you discuss do not apply to administrative proceedings -- a point well established in the courts. In any event, the observation of the pilot's behavior and/or detection of a smell of alcohol on a pilot after landing is all the probable cause needed for a trained LEO to proceed with the tests for alcoholic impairment, and there's nothing in the Fourth or Fifth Amendments which bars a LEO from merely approaching a pilot in a public location like the ramp at a public-use airport to make those observations.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
He didn't "stop the guy." He merely approached the pilot after landing and observed the pilot's behavior. First, there is no requirement in the law for probable cause before anyone authorized under 61.3 to request presentation of one's pilot documents. Second, an FAA enforcement proceeding is an administrative action, not a criminal prosecution, and the protections you discuss do not apply to administrative proceedings -- a point well established in the courts. In any event, the observation of the pilot's behavior and/or detection of a smell of alcohol on a pilot after landing is all the probable cause needed for a trained LEO to proceed with the tests for alcoholic impairment, and there's nothing in the Fourth or Fifth Amendments which bars a LEO from merely approaching a pilot in a public location like the ramp at a public-use airport to make those observations.
Click to expand...

It sounds like he did "stop the guy" to me.

Guy said he was a local police or something. Went and found the guy and asked for his paperwork after observing his landing and subsequent taxi. He said the guy had done nothing other than come in hot and not taxi up to his standards (Which I'm guessing are arbitrary unless the local police have training on spotting drunk landings and taxiing)

I agree, if he just casually followed the guy to the mens room searching for sniff of alcohol or whatever but it appears he approached the guy and asked for credentials based on nothing more than a landing that sounds legal even if it wasn't a greaser. What's stopping the cops from setting up shop at the airport and harassing anyone who doesn't land up to their arbitrary standards?
 
bartmc said:
It sounds like he did "stop the guy" to me.

Guy said he was a local police or something. Went and found the guy and asked for his paperwork after observing his landing and subsequent taxi.
Click to expand...
...which under 14 CFR 61.3 the LEO was fully empowered to do just because s/he felt like it. There is nothing in that regulation requiring probable cause or even reasonable suspicion for anyone listed in that regulation to make that request. That's a point which has been well-tested not only before the NTSB but in the US Court of Appeals.

He said the guy had done nothing other than come in hot and not taxi up to his standards (Which I'm guessing are arbitrary unless the local police have training on spotting drunk landings and taxiing)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't matter if the arrival had been one which would make the FAA Administrator smile and nod approvingly -- it would still be legal under 14 CFR 61.3 for anyone listed there to approach the pilot and request presentation of his/her documents (and illegal for that pilot to refuse that request once the listed person properly identified him/herself). And that's the point you seem to be missing.
 
61.3
(l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part must present it and their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a request from:
(1) The Administrator;
(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;
(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.
Click to expand...

They request, you show. I don't see where it says they need any particular type of reason to request.
 
Ron Levy said:
...which under 14 CFR 61.3 the LEO was fully empowered to do just because s/he felt like it. There is nothing in that regulation requiring probable cause or even reasonable suspicion for anyone listed in that regulation to make that request. That's a point which has been well-tested not only before the NTSB but in the US Court of Appeals.

Wouldn't matter if the arrival had been one which would make the FAA Administrator smile and nod approvingly -- it would still be legal under 14 CFR 61.3 for anyone listed there to approach the pilot and request presentation of his/her documents (and illegal for that pilot to refuse that request once the listed person properly identified him/herself). And that's the point you seem to be missing.
Click to expand...

I get it, it's FAA admin action only. Would the cop have any authority to detain if he were handed all the paperwork he requested?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top