Police Ramp Checks

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...

Yet another reason why, when approached by "friendly" law enforcement personnel, the best response is "I'm sorry, I don't speak to police."
 
bartmc said:
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?
Click to expand...
If the LEO had reason to believe you were breaking a law, yes. If not, no.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If the LEO had reason to believe you were breaking a criminal law, yes. If not, no.
Click to expand...
The LEO could get a pilot anytime for careless and reckless(not CFR 91.13, one of the criminal code versions) or disturbing the peace(of an officer eating a donut.) Probably some others, heck the officer just has to claim suspicion of terror and anything goes.
 
ClimbnSink said:
The LEO could get a pilot anytime for careless and reckless(not CFR 91.13, one of the criminal code versions) or disturbing the peace(of an officer eating a donut.) Probably some others, heck the officer just has to claim suspicion of terror and anything goes.
Click to expand...
An LEO could certainly try that, but unless s/he could show at least reasonable suspicion based on your actions (and bad landing wouldn't be that), the result would likely be making you rich and the LEO unemployed.
 
Ron Levy said:
An LEO could certainly try that, but unless s/he could show at least reasonable suspicion based on your actions (and bad landing wouldn't be that), the result would likely be making you rich and the LEO unemployed.
Click to expand...


Didn't we have a interesting threadi n the spin zone a few weeks back on LEO's sending a "victim" to the hospital for an anal exam ??:eek:...

I believe it ended up as a 7 figure pay day for the harressed citizen...:yes:
 
N801BH said:
Didn't we have a interesting threadi n the spin zone a few weeks back on LEO's sending a "victim" to the hospital for an anal exam ??:eek:...

I believe it ended up as a 7 figure pay day for the harressed citizen...:yes:
Click to expand...


No wonder folks do not fly anymore. Think its going to get better?

Tony
 
And just how is the local Barney Fife authorized to take enforcement action against any FWI regulation violations?

He has no authority over the air does he? And I seriously doubt that there are any local laws covering "taxiing while intoxicated" on the books.
 
timwinters said:
And just how is the local Barney Fife authorized to take enforcement action against any FWI regulation violations?

He has no authority over the air does he? And I seriously doubt that there are any local laws covering "taxiing while intoxicated" on the books.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there will be some sort of law that could be applied. It's been done before. Being in an airplane does not exempt you from all state and local statutes.
 
timwinters said:
And just how is the local Barney Fife authorized to take enforcement action against any FWI regulation violations?

He has no authority over the air does he? And I seriously doubt that there are any local laws covering "taxiing while intoxicated" on the books.
Click to expand...
Many of the DUI statues cover all vehicles. There is probable cause, disturbing the peace or careless and reckless is a gimme. Yes there have been 7 figure payouts for bogus police work those are the exception not the rule. Any pilot could be bagged for one of the above and the dippy local court would uphold it. There was a case a few years ago of a cop citing a pilot doing touch and goes for careless and reckless(not 91.13) charge stuck, iirc it was normal, sober touch and goes.
 
timwinters said:
And just how is the local Barney Fife authorized to take enforcement action against any FWI regulation violations?

He has no authority over the air does he? And I seriously doubt that there are any local laws covering "taxiing while intoxicated" on the books.
Click to expand...

Depends how the local laws are worded...if they say "Shall not operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated", that covers taxiing, as an aircraft is certainly a motor vehicle (gliders excepted).
 
timwinters said:
And just how is the local Barney Fife authorized to take enforcement action against any FWI regulation violations?

He has no authority over the air does he? And I seriously doubt that there are any local laws covering "taxiing while intoxicated" on the books.
Click to expand...
Actually, many states do have criminal laws about flying or otherwise operating an aircraft while under the influence, and that gives any local LEO the authority to take action if s/he sees indications that a violation of that state law is occurring. The fact that the FAA has regulations about something does preempt the states from enacting criminal laws on the same point.
 
JeffDG said:
Depends how the local laws are worded...if they say "Shall not operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated", that covers taxiing, as an aircraft is certainly a motor vehicle (gliders excepted).
Click to expand...

Covers lawn mowers too as a guy found out on his way to a liquor store on one. :yes::D Oh well, what's one more DUI? :lol:
 
Ron Levy said:
Exactly. And staggering or otherwise acting like you were under the influence would be a bad idea, too.
Click to expand...

Or... Getting out of the airplane with a Turkish towel on you head with a fan belt wrapped around it. In 55 years of flying, hanging around towered and non towered airports I have never been approached by or hassled by an Leo. Never seen or heard of one saying- doing anything to any pilot on a ramp. Only seen a few having a meal at the airport resturant, not the least bit interested in bothering anyone. Press on!
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Or... Getting out of the airplane with a Turkish towel on you head with a fan belt wrapped around it. In 55 years of flying, hanging around towered and non towered airports I have never been approached by or hassled by an Leo. Never seen or heard of one saying- doing anything to any pilot on a ramp. Only seen a few having a meal at the airport resturant, not the least bit interested in bothering anyone. Press on!
Click to expand...
I agree. My academic discussion of the legal issues should not be confused with any concern about LEO's going out to the airport just to check on pilots. I only know of a handful of events of that nature spread over my several decades of aviation experience, and they usually involved some triggering action like a call about suspicious activity or a late-night no-lights arrival at a very quiet unattended airport (suggesting drug trafficking) or something like that.
 
JeffDG said:
Depends how the local laws are worded...if they say "Shall not operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated", that covers taxiing, as an aircraft is certainly a motor vehicle (gliders excepted).
Click to expand...

Oh, some states go further and say any vehicle. I played softball with team made up of about 50% police officers and they were talking about being out on the river giving out OWI's to people in canoes. That's right a canoe is a vehicle. Drunk canoeing. And it goes on your driving record. Awesome. Remember to report it on your FAA medical.
 
Many years ago (1990 ish), I had just landed on the ground at Stellar Airpark P19 in the Phoenix area. I was flying 135 cargo of undeveloped film from Burbank. A Blackhawk helicopter landing behind the plane and several uniformed agents charged the plane with guns drawn. I was accused of flying across the Mexican boarder. I gave them my flight number and inbound transponder code while telling them I was no where close to the boarder. They asked and I allowed them to search the plane. They started removing the cargo. I told them I was not authorized to allow them to search the cargo itself. I told them to call my company for permission. They were recalled back to the helicopter and left without saying a word.

It was normal for me to spend the day at the airport. A gentleman approached me and asked about all of the excitement. I told him that I recognized him as one of the officers holding a gun on me. He gave he his card and said it was a case of mistaken identity. Later, I found out that one of my co-workers who flew from San Diego to Stellar was the person they were looking for.

My other run in was working for the same company. I was sunning myself on the ramp in Montgomery Field, in San Diego. My Cessna 207's nose strut was sticking. When I unloaded it, the plane stayed very tail low. First the police noticed and they called a DEA team that was running around the field. They asked to search the plane. I told them no and then went under the tail a bumped the plane. The nose dropped with a thunk and the Feds seemed happy with that.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Oh, some states go further and say any vehicle. I played softball with team made up of about 50% police officers and they were talking about being out on the river giving out OWI's to people in canoes. That's right a canoe is a vehicle. Drunk canoeing. And it goes on your driving record. Awesome. Remember to report it on your FAA medical.
Click to expand...

I had a client lose his medical for not reporting an incident involving use of a jet ski while over the legal limit. We had arguments about whether it was a motor vehicle action, but not for the suspension of his license or the arrest.
 
Yes of course. At easton maryland, in the 80's, a short landed with windows blanked out with OD paint, a ratty looking short. The pilot got out, in a t shirt and Bermudas,long hair, clogs, went to a pay phone, called, walked quickly back to the plane, fired up, taxied down to the end of the runway and sat there a long time. No radio transmission ( this was pre tower days) Someone called the police and just as they pulled in, he took off. We surmised he might have mistaken esn for summit airport in Delaware which at that time was heavily involved in CIA " activities" associated with Iran contra. That's a whole other story.
 
JeffDG said:
Depends how the local laws are worded...if they say "Shall not operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated", that covers taxiing, as an aircraft is certainly a motor vehicle (gliders excepted).
Click to expand...

An aircraft is not a "motor vehicle" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2311.
 
timwinters said:
An aircraft is not a "motor vehicle" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2311.
Click to expand...

We're talking about state/local law, so the definitions in those would be controlling.

“Motor vehicle” includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails;
Click to expand...

Seems to cover an aircraft with the exception of gliders and seaplanes. It's not their home element, but aircraft are most certainly designed to run on land (and not rails).
 
I don't think my airplane is designed to run on (travel by) land. If it was, it'd be called a "ground plane".

Besides, aircraft have a separate definition from "motor vehicles" in 18 U.S.C. § 2311.
 
timwinters said:
I don't think my airplane is designed to run on (travel by) land. If it was, it'd be called a "ground plane".
Click to expand...

"Run on" and "travel by" are not synonyms.

Your aircraft has wheels, made of rubber (steel would denote rail design), so includes elements of design for running on land.
 
JeffDG said:
"Run on" and "travel by" are not synonyms.

Your aircraft has wheels, made of rubber (steel would denote rail design), so includes elements of design for running on land.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed this part since I added it:

besides, aircraft have a separate definition from "motor vehicles" in 18 U.S.C. § 2311.
Click to expand...
 
So a helicopter would be exempt, as would a blimp.

And Tim, ASEL.
 
To be clear, 18 U.S.C. § 2311...

Defines aircraft as: “Aircraft” means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or for flight in the air;

And defines motor vehicles as: “Motor vehicle” includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails;

Two separate beasts, two separate definitions.
 
timwinters said:
To be clear, 18 U.S.C. § 2311...

Defines aircraft as: “Aircraft” means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or for flight in the air;

And defines motor vehicles as: “Motor vehicle” includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails;

Two separate beasts, two separate definitions.
Click to expand...

That's fine, until the state puts a more restrictive law on the books and defines a plane as a motor vehicle. Then the state would be allowed to pursue charges based on that. The Feds could not pursue motor vehicle charges against the usage of an airplane, but a state could if they define it as such. And since you would be operating on the ground at some point, you are operating under state law as well as Federal.
 
EdFred said:
That's fine, until the state puts a more restrictive law on the books and defines a plane as a motor vehicle. Then the state would be allowed to pursue charges based on that. The Feds could not pursue motor vehicle charges against the usage of an airplane, but a state could if they define it as such. And since you would be operating on the ground at some point, you are operating under state law as well as Federal.
Click to expand...

True, but in Missouri all motor vehicles must be registered and licensed. My plane is neither.

BTW...we have BWI (boating while intoxicated) legislation here and being busted goes against your license. I don't THINK we have canoeing while intoxicated like you guys do. That's a bit over the top.

And, boy if we did, the national scenic riverways (which are national parks) around here would see a 99% decline in activity in the summer. CWI is a rite of passage for the Missouri hillbillies.
 
“Motor vehicle” includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails;"

Well, I guess that's how the poor guy on the lawn mower got stuck with a DUI. :D
 
timwinters said:
BTW...we have BWI (boating while intoxicated) legislation here and being busted goes against your license.
Click to expand...
Either that is not enforced much or people don't care. I have been to party cove on Lake of the Ozarks (on someone else's boat).
 
Ain't that the truth!

They'd be hard pressed to arrest a few hundred as the party cove party breaks up!
 
timwinters said:
To be clear, 18 U.S.C. § 2311...

Defines aircraft as: “Aircraft” means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of or for flight in the air;

And defines motor vehicles as: “Motor vehicle” includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails;

Two separate beasts, two separate definitions.
Click to expand...

All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

There's nothing in the motor vehicle definition that excludes aircraft. Nothing says that they can't be both.
 
Yeah, whatever.

Separate purposes, separate definitions. Aircraft aren't "designed for running on land" however they are "designed for navigation of or for flight in the air"

I used to catch air at one particular RR xing when I was a kid. Hit it at 80 mph and I could achieve 6' of elevation. But that didn't make my car an aircraft any more than taxiing an airplane makes it a motor vehicle.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Yeah, whatever.

Separate purposes, separate definitions. Aircraft aren't "designed for running on land" however they are "designed for navigation of or for flight in the air"

I used to catch air at one particular RR xing when I was a kid. Hit it at 80 mph and I could achieve 6' of elevation. But that didn't make my car an aircraft any more than taxiing an airplane makes it a motor vehicle.
Click to expand...
Dude going vrooom I'm an airplane will not exempt you from a cop going all rogue ticket/bogus bust on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top