Visit from CBP at my hangar

Why isn't the CBP as aggressive in pursuing those sneaking in rather than spending time on citizens wanting to travel elsewhere?
 
Cruiser said:
What about § 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.?

Once the engine started the pilot was in command of a legal flight. It would seem that the CBP violated the FAA regulations on this one.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the CBP is shaking in their boots. :rofl:
 
Intimidation is what works best for the gov't .until they reign in the CBT it will only escalate . The AOPA and eaa have to use more resources to protect our rights.
 
pj500 said:
Guys,

This is a known international border crossing complete with international flight plan.

The AOPA fiasco concentrated more on pilots who could (or were able to prove) they did not depart and/or did not intend to depart the USA.

The search rules are different here. I have no clue about the hangar part being legal, but basically they can strip search you for no cause coming/going to the USA.
Click to expand...


No they can't.

While they can certainly perform routine searches of you and your possessions when entering the US, they can't do this without PC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
 
Well, there's another reason to put off my bucket list GA trip from FL to PR until I acquire enough range on my airplane to do it non-stop. I'm not messing with CBP and their kabuki. This just kills it for me. Not worth it. :no:

I'd fly up and down the Florida keys all day instead of bothering with it if I was in search of a tropical destination via GA.

The War on Drugs; 'effing it up for everybody since 1971...:mad2:

Anybody know how much arrow 3 fuel tanks retrofitted into an arrow 2 would set me back? Move a rib, trim the skin to fit the wider tank, 38.5 gal fuel gauges. Is that an STC or would a 337 do? At this point, going through that expense would be worth overflying these @holes with a simpleton domestic flight plan and two middle fingers in the air. :yes:
 
hindsight2020 said:
Well, there's another reason to put off my bucket list GA trip from FL to PR until I acquire enough range on my airplane to do it non-stop. I'm not messing with CBP and their kabuki. This just kills it for me. Not worth it. :no:

I'd fly up and down the Florida keys all day instead of bothering with it if I was in search of a tropical destination via GA.

The War on Drugs; 'effing it up for everybody since 1971...:mad2:

Anybody know how much arrow 3 fuel tanks retrofitted into an arrow 2 would set me back? Move a rib, trim the skin to fit the wider tank, 38.5 gal fuel gauges. Is that an STC or would a 337 do? At this point, going through that expense would be worth overflying these @holes with a simpleton domestic flight plan and two middle fingers in the air. :yes:
Click to expand...

Whoa...wat cha transporting??? I bet those CBP/ICE look for go through similar measures to avoid contact. Some would say Suspicious.
 
Just a comment on telling them you agree to a search of your hangar (because you have nothing to hide).
Better be very, very, very sure no one has the hards for you, stuck contraband in your hangar/plane, and dropped a dime. Just a half teaspoon of MJ seeds will make your life a hell.
Any and every lawyer in the country will tell you to say NO and make them go get the warrant.
Over an anonymous phone tip they are not likely to get it. After making dark threats and puffing up and getting in your face for two hours (they don't really have anything better to do) they will go stomping away.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Welcome to your new Police State.

Just remember the fable about how to boil a frog.
Click to expand...
Rich white people are just now noticing. We told them long ago, they didn't believe us. Kinda funny actually. The outrage and the we'll fix this with our voting and lobbying groups is funny too. Let me know how that works out will ya?:lol:
 
AdamZ said:
Jeff, not exactly correct. As previously stated searches at a border are a different animal. But Police can't just search your care because they have probable cause. They can search your car if 1) Contraband is in plain view, 2) you consent or 3) The search is for officer safety, which is usually negated once you are removed from the car.

Police need probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant which would permit a search of the car.
Click to expand...


Adam, don't get Gant mixed up with the Carroll doctrine, they are two separate animals. Gant only dealt with blanket warrantless search of vehicles incident to arrest, which was - since Belton in 1981 - a very liberal tool, but now not so much as you aptly explained. But Gant left untouched the vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement established in Carroll and expounded upon many times since then. Jeff's post was exactly correct, with federal authorities and in most state and local jurisdictions, the judicial review of probable cause that would justify a search of a vehicle happens afterwards in a hearing (if it comes to that), not before with a warrant application and sworn affidavit - unless the agent chooses to apply for a warrant anyway 'just because.'
 
Last edited:
Scott@KTYR said:
Post#20 - He said they did not Ask, they said we are going to search.
What do you tell your client's to do then?
Click to expand...

Jesse pretty much summed it up below. To prove the lack of consent you can always whip out the cell phone camera and put it on camera. Or at least you can try.

jesse said:
You tell them that you do not consent to the search. If they proceed to ignore that you said that there isn't much you can do but in court they'll have to prove the search was legal regardless of what they find.
Click to expand...



alaskaflyer said:
Adam, don't get Gant mixed up with the Carroll doctrine, they are two separate animals. Gant only dealt with blanket warrantless search of vehicles incident to arrest, which was - since Belton in 1981 - a very liberal tool, but now not so much as you aptly explained. But Gant left untouched the vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement established in Carroll and expounded upon many times since then. Jeff's post was exactly correct, with federal authorities and in most state and local jurisdictions, the judicial review of probable cause that would justify a search of a vehicle happens afterwards in a hearing (if it comes to that), not before with a warrant application and sworn affidavit - unless the agent chooses to apply for a warrant anyway 'just because.'
Click to expand...

Federal vs. State here. which using your lingo are different animals. Police for the most part are local and state, with certain exceptions. As you are aware the Federal Constitution provides minimum protections. States can provide more protections but not less. When Jeff made his post I should have differentiated between police and CBP as he mentioned both. ( Assuming he meant police as in State Police or the Mayberry PD.
 
I suspect that many folks would be tempted to consent to a search in an effort to minimize the inconvenience of being detained for a prolonged period of time.

For how long can a LEO detain you before he either has to arrest or release you? I've heard stories of LEOs threatening and actually detaining folks for hours on end in an attempt to shake out a consent or confession.


JKG
 
Now of these guys had waited until the airplane or the occupant had entered the hangar, they would full right to search the hangar under border search authority and there was a nexus to a border crossing. For that no warrant, no probable cause, nothing is needed. Just like when you enter a international airport, your 4th amendment rights don't exist.
 
Like someone else mentioned, would refusing consent pi$$ them off enough that something would get "planted" and "found"?


I would not put it past law enforcement to do this.
 
TommyG said:
Now of these guys had waited until the airplane or the occupant had entered the hangar, they would full right to search the hangar under border search authority and there was a nexus to a border crossing. For that no warrant, no probable cause, nothing is needed. Just like when you enter a international airport, your 4th amendment rights don't exist.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the OP's incident? The plane was departing for the Bahamas.
 
garyb said:
I was wondering the same thing.
Click to expand...

What you're looking for is a "Terry stop", which is a minor investigative detention that requires only "reasonable suspicion" and not the "probable cause" that would justify an arrest. There is no hard and fast rule on this; it's generally the rule that it can't be longer than needed to reasonably investigate the suspicion (either to build probable cause or to dispel the suspicion). See here.

That being said, at a border I would guess far different rules apply. Terry stops are things like traffic stops or a police officer insisting on talking with you in the street. They can make you stop and chat (or at least, chat at you), and potentially pat you down if they can articulate suspicion, but they can't keep you there for hours. I don't know that the CBP has to allow you to cross the border in a reasonable amount of time. I suspect not.
 
Last edited:
mcmanigle said:
What you're looking for is a "Terry stop", which is a minor investigative detention that requires only "reasonable suspicion" and not the "probable cause" that would justify an arrest. There is no hard and fast rule on this; it's generally the rule that it can't be longer than needed to reasonably investigate the suspicion (either to build probable cause or to dispel the suspicion).
Click to expand...

I figured that it was a bit variable, but it became an issue in my city several years ago when LEOs were supposedly detaining folks for hours on end before releasing them, sometimes repeatedly, without an arrest. It would seem that there should be some remedy to protect the public against unlawful detention, but short of filing suit against the LEOs to get it in the courts, I'm not sure what that would be.

Although way off topic, I've also had the experience of being detained (along with everyone else) in a retail store by the manager when another shopper's child went missing. They eventually found the child, but during the search would not permit anyone to leave the store. I've never been quite sure that such a detention was even legal.


JKG
 
JGoodish said:
Although way off topic, I've also had the experience of being detained (along with everyone else) in a retail store by the manager when another shopper's child went missing. They eventually found the child, but during the search would not permit anyone to leave the store. I've never been quite sure that such a detention was even legal.


JKG
Click to expand...
I'd have pulled a fire alarm.
 
JGoodish said:
I figured that it was a bit variable, but it became an issue in my city several years ago when LEOs were supposedly detaining folks for hours on end before releasing them, sometimes repeatedly, without an arrest. It would seem that there should be some remedy to protect the public against unlawful detention, but short of filing suit against the LEOs to get it in the courts, I'm not sure what that would be.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at the moment that is exactly the remedy -- filing suit. Or filing a complaint or threatening to sue to try to get a settlement.

JGoodish said:
Although way off topic, I've also had the experience of being detained (along with everyone else) in a retail store by the manager when another shopper's child went missing. They eventually found the child, but during the search would not permit anyone to leave the store. I've never been quite sure that such a detention was even legal.
Click to expand...

In much of the States, shopkeepers have the right to stop someone from leaving temporarily if they suspect shoplifting. Where the privilege does exist, it's only until the suspicion can be reasonably dispelled (by, for example, the customer voluntarily turning out his pockets -- no coercive search is allowed) or until the police arrive. But that doesn't confer any special privilege when it comes to non-shoplifting crimes.

Citizen's arrest is also legal in most jurisdictions in the States, though differing common law and statutes make it impossible to come up with one rule. I can't imagine any jurisdiction would be okay with locking down an entire store for the purpose of a missing child, but if the police were called and it was a very short interval before the situation was turned over to him/her, you might find a sympathetic judge. Regardless, and especially if the police weren't called or the situation lasted more than a couple of minutes, I suspect a false imprisonment suit / charge would stand up pretty well.

IANAL
 
Are they allowed to STOP us from recording from our phones??
 
EminiTrader said:
Are they allowed to STOP us from recording from our phones??
Click to expand...

NO!

The courts have been very clear in that it is perfectly legal to film law enforcement in a public place as long as you are not actually interfering with their work
 
beestforwardspeed said:
NO!

The courts have been very clear in that it is perfectly legal to film law enforcement in a public place as long as you are not actually interfering with their work
Click to expand...

Got a citation? Always good to have the justification in advance. Is it state by state or Federal?
 
murphey said:
Got a citation? Always good to have the justification in advance. Is it state by state or Federal?
Click to expand...

MD has a wiretapping law. Cops for the longest time used that law to stop people from recording them including stealing their phones and falsely imprisoning them. A year or two ago, both the AG and one of the appeals courts stated in no uncertain terms that a LEO performing his job in plain view of the public has no expectation of privacy and that the wiretapping statute therefore does not apply.
 
wsuffa said:
I think there are restrictions on it, but IANAL. A quick look indicates that it's 100 miles, not 200 miles. But still.....
Click to expand...
Most of the US population lives within 100 miles of the border. Do you think that distance is a coincidence?
 
AdamZ said:
Jeff, not exactly correct. As previously stated searches at a border are a different animal. But Police can't just search your care because they have probable cause. They can search your car if 1) Contraband is in plain view, 2) you consent or 3) The search is for officer safety, which is usually negated once you are removed from the car.

Police need probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant which would permit a search of the car.

I tell my client's the following: 1) Always treat officers with respect regardless whether they are civil or acting like a class "A" jerk. 2) Never make any statements. I've never seen a client talk themselves out of an arrest but many have talked themselves into a conviction. 3) Do not consent to a search. If they want to search let them get a warrant. If they don't have cause to get a warrant they may keep you for a while but they won't get the warrant. My favorite is when the client says " They told me if I didn't let them search they'd get a warrant" my response is always " Great let them get a warrant"
Click to expand...

How long can they force you to "wait"? IIRC, SCOTUS said a detention is good for something on the order of 20 minutes.
 
JGoodish said:
I suspect that many folks would be tempted to consent to a search in an effort to minimize the inconvenience of being detained for a prolonged period of time.
Click to expand...

I suspect that when they are surrounded by guys in body armor pointing M-16s at them, many folks "consent" to a search in an attempt to minimize the inconvenience of being shot.
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
Why isn't the CBP as aggressive in pursuing those sneaking in rather than spending time on citizens wanting to travel elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Paraphrasing a line in 'First Blood Part II', "...someone doesn't want us to win."

I can imagine (and we've seen) the psychosis that creates in those who are asked to carry out the stated policy but are thwarted by "someone."

Unfortunately this results in the "kicking the dog" syndrome; these CPB people turn into thugs since they can only intimidate those who can't (legally) fight back.
 
paflyer said:
How long can they force you to "wait"? IIRC, SCOTUS said a detention is good for something on the order of 20 minutes.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has never (I'm pretty sure) put a number on it and never will, as it's based on reasonable investigation given the circumstances (which is why there's very little recourse in these things except to sue after the fact). But they're pretty strict when it comes to unnecessary delay.

For example, it's okay to walk a drug dog around a car during a traffic stop, as long as it doesn't prolong the stop at all. It's not okay to delay the stop by even a couple of minutes to bring a drug dog in. (Unless there's probable cause to suspect drugs anyway.) Illinois v. Caballes

On the other hand, a guy acting really sketchy at an airport with big checked bags could also have been reasonably dog-sniffed, but even a bit of justifiable reasonable suspicion (wrong addresses on mismatched baggage labels) was not enough to justify officers taking the bags for 90 minutes to go find a dog to do the smelling. United States v. Place

In the extreme, with reasonable suspicion that a drug mule had swallowed balloons of illicits, CBP agents were allowed to detain her for 16 hours to wait for the balloons to pass through the system before making an arrest. United States v. Montoya De Hernandez
 
dans2992 said:
Like someone else mentioned, would refusing consent pi$$ them off enough that something would get "planted" and "found"?


I would not put it past law enforcement to do this.
Click to expand...
Hell, they'll lie to get a lousy traffic conviction, so why not?
 
mcmanigle said:
What you're looking for is a "Terry stop", which is a minor investigative detention that requires only "reasonable suspicion" and not the "probable cause" that would justify an arrest. There is no hard and fast rule on this; it's generally the rule that it can't be longer than needed to reasonably investigate the suspicion (either to build probable cause or to dispel the suspicion). See here.

That being said, at a border I would guess far different rules apply. Terry stops are things like traffic stops or a police officer insisting on talking with you in the street. They can make you stop and chat (or at least, chat at you), and potentially pat you down if they can articulate suspicion, but they can't keep you there for hours. I don't know that the CBP has to allow you to cross the border in a reasonable amount of time. I suspect not.
Click to expand...
Of course the so-called Patriot Act nullifies ALL protections afforded by the Constitution.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
NO!

The courts have been very clear in that it is perfectly legal to film law enforcement in a public place as long as you are not actually interfering with their work
Click to expand...
Yeah, define "interfering". Who makes that call, the cop being recorded?
 
Reading the Mooney stop I can't help but notice that the CBP guy had an armed Local LEO there watching what is going on. IS this because the CBP guy doesn't have authority or is the LEO there for the CBP guys protection? The good thing is that he is a witness to all that happens if he is honest. I think if I were in the pilots shoes I would ask someone from the FBO to be on hand as my witness to the events as they unfold. A phone video is great but I am sure you would have many objections to that happening. A lot of these guys do undercover work and would not want their faces on a video or still photo.

I think the minute the dog climbed on the wing I would have been in handcuffs. That is just plain stupid IMHO. What gives them the right to damage property.

If they brought out the screw drivers to start removing panels I think I would have to ask to see their A&P certificate, or tell them they needed to be paying an A&P to do that for them, and also remind them that the aircraft needed to be in the same condition at the end of the insanity that it was at the beginning.

It would not be good if this happened to me as I tend to wear my feelings on my face and there would be no hiding that I was fighting mad at the invasion and injustice of how it was being handled.
 
Clearly what is needed is an ap and a website. If it could be worked out so that in a detention like this one, you could get out your phone, start recording and have it stream live to the web, you could at least get your statement of non consent and maybe a few other details permanently recorded out of the reach of the LEOs. Even if the LEO confiscates your phone, you could perhaps get the basics out there. Particularly if there is more than one of you.

I suppose that if this became common, the first thing a LEO would do is pat you down and take your phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top