Visit from CBP at my hangar

comanchepilot said:
Had a situation where a person was cited for an 'illegal' 'U' turn. No such beast in California = you can make an 'unsafe' u-turn but even with a posted no U-turn sign you can still make one if it is safe.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the law that got this guy off? I live in California and have a class A commercial driver's license. I had read in my test prep many years ago, that a white posted sign was mandatory with citation possible for violation. The no U turn signs are white. I take that to mean- No U Turn, meaning that if you go ahead and make the turn anyhow, it is illegal.

What does this mean for all the other signs? Are they just suggestions too? I thought yellow signs were advisory, but are you suggesting they all are?

I am confused.:confused:
 
Dav8or said:
Can you point me to the law that got this guy off? I live in California and have a class A commercial driver's license. I had read in my test prep many years ago, that a white posted sign was mandatory with citation possible for violation. The no U turn signs are white. I take that to mean- No U Turn, meaning that if you go ahead and make the turn anyhow, it is illegal.

What does this mean for all the other signs? Are they just suggestions too? I thought yellow signs were advisory, but are you suggesting they all are?

I am confused.:confused:
Click to expand...

I suspect what he is saying is that if it isn't prohibited in the text of the California Vehicle Code then you can't be cited regardless of what a No U Turn road sign might say. According to the Nolo article linked below, nothing in the code says U turns are prohibited where signs claim it is prohibited. But it does say, via 21651, that markings on the road show where such turns are prohibited. Likely "No U Turn" signs would be posted only to alert drivers that one of the conditions mentioned in the vehicle code prohibits the turn - the sign itself cannot on its own prohibit the turn. What California vehicle code would such a citation reference as being violated? (Presumably one that effectively says "A person may not do X where a sign says you can't.")

http://www.all-about-car-accidents.com/resources/auto-accident/state-car-accident-law/illegal-u-turn-laws-california

Note: Nolo's own comment "Obviously, if there is a visible sign that prohibits a U-turn in an opening, you may not make a U-turn there," isn't supported by the vehicle code they cite, so it isn't that obvious or necessarily correct. To be rigorously accurate they need to cite the vehicle code that says such signage must be followed - but they failed to do that.
 
comanchepilot said:
Never knew what happened -
Click to expand...


Administrative paid leave (vacation) and back Ina cruiser a couple of weeks later.

Taxpayers picked up the tab for his lawyers, the prosecutor, another judge, and all the officers involved in the booking, detainment, release, all paperwork, IA investigation, plea bargaining, paying the Union rep from everyone's paycheck, and who knows what else.

Basically, "the system" gave itself busywork and the cash to do it. No way it ever went to Court.

No conflict of interest there. Nope.
 
Mike5250 said:
I guess the next time one of us has border protection or even a ramp check agent itching to rip the plane apart you can start recording with your smart phone?
Click to expand...

You can according to the ACLU...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/it-legal-photograph-or-videotape-police

https://www.aclu.org/filming-and-photographing-police

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/you-have-every-right-photograph-cop

This website supports the right of Americans to photograph or video law enforcement and government officials:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/
 
rpayne88 said:
IMHO, these should be illegal. I read an article on AOPA where CBP came after a pilot GUNS DRAWN, with a K-9, and asked for consent to search. It was basically an "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse" moment. Either he consented to the search or they would arrest him for obstruction of justice or something like that.

I'd just put a cheap camera up, have it record AND send video to my home. Then take the footage to a lawyer. Even if they took the camera, they'd have to go into your house to confiscate all the footage, and doing so without a warrant is, obviously, illegal.
Click to expand...


I've often wondered, (I'm sure Comanchepilot could tell me) if the courts frequently throw out cases where the suspect consented to a search, but only because he was put under undue duress (such as having a weapon pointed at him)?

In a supression hearing, do most judges treat that in the same manner as if one consents to search when an officer and suspect are just having a friendly "chat"?
 
denverpilot said:
Administrative paid leave (vacation) and back Ina cruiser a couple of weeks later.

Taxpayers picked up the tab for his lawyers, the prosecutor, another judge, and all the officers involved in the booking, detainment, release, all paperwork, IA investigation, plea bargaining, paying the Union rep from everyone's paycheck, and who knows what else.

Basically, "the system" gave itself busywork and the cash to do it. No way it ever went to Court.

No conflict of interest there. Nope.
Click to expand...

As much as I would love to see more and more lawsuits asserting the individual over bad arrests like these - until the individual officer overstepping his grounds is PERSONALLY liable, all we're doing is redistributing our own tax dollars.
 
gkainz said:
As much as I would love to see more and more lawsuits asserting the individual over bad arrests like these - until the individual officer overstepping his grounds is PERSONALLY liable, all we're doing is redistributing our own tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken!!!
 
comanchepilot said:
did he consent to the search? Or did they just do it?

If they just did it you need to find a lawyer post haste and file a civil rights complaint against all police forces and law enforcement which participated.

If the hangar door was closed - and the plane was out - a clear violation. Since he CANNOT consent to a search of a closed and locked area that he lacks even the apparent authority to consent to .. .
Click to expand...

He said he was "ordered"...I'm guessing the LEOs involved would say "we requested consent to search."

A common tactic LEOs use is to make a request sound like an order. Said forcefully, "I'm going to look in the hangar, okay?" sounds like an order, but it's a question and technically a request.
 
I'm never in much of a hurry, I will do what I can to delay, delay, delay.

"No, I do not consent, and I have nowhere I need to be, so I have no problem waiting for a warrant."
 
gkainz said:
As much as I would love to see more and more lawsuits asserting the individual over bad arrests like these - until the individual officer overstepping his grounds is PERSONALLY liable, all we're doing is redistributing our own tax dollars.
Click to expand...
Heard Johnnie Cochran give a speech once, he made his fortune suing cities for cops shooting people without justification. He straight up admitted these people getting shot by the cops were bad, but they were being killed without cause or due justice. And he said the only thing that put a damper on it was the city paying out multimillion dollar judgements. Make the gov't to bleed enough and it will cause change. As long as the people hear about it.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
I've often wondered, (I'm sure Comanchepilot could tell me) if the courts frequently throw out cases where the suspect consented to a search, but only because he was put under undue duress (such as having a weapon pointed at him)?

In a supression hearing, do most judges treat that in the same manner as if one consents to search when an officer and suspect are just having a friendly "chat"?
Click to expand...

duress? I think there just was a case like that - I forgot which way it went - consent is consent - unless it was beaten out of you. Even giving you no choice, is still a choice.
 
gkainz said:
As much as I would love to see more and more lawsuits asserting the individual over bad arrests like these - until the individual officer overstepping his grounds is PERSONALLY liable, all we're doing is redistributing our own tax dollars.
Click to expand...

there is no enough personal 'responsibility' in that group for me - despite all the protestations to the contrary.

I received an extra deep measure of crap for questioning why a group of 100 motorcycle police officers can close off a freeway [not a lane mind you - but then entire freeway. without permit or permission] to bury a fellow officer. Even in death they get to break the law with impunity.
 
bullwinkle said:
He said he was "ordered"...I'm guessing the LEOs involved would say "we requested consent to search."

A common tactic LEOs use is to make a request sound like an order. Said forcefully, "I'm going to look in the hangar, okay?" sounds like an order, but it's a question and technically a request.
Click to expand...

and 99.9999% of people are too polite and too risk averse and too resistant to conflict to disagree . . .. guess I'm not one of them.

The funny thing is that cops see it as soon as they look in your eyes - thus - why I rarely have a problem. Polite Persistant Knowledgeable.

Thats all you need to be.
 
If you get detained and it goes past just showing the required documents, do you have a right at that point to say I need to call my attorney before further questioning.
 
comanchepilot said:
In this - I would file a civil rights complaint just so you can obtain the information they based the stop on . . . if it is relevant to their defense- then you get it - end of story. They'll bytch, whine, moan, complain, threaten, cajole, etc etc etc but sooner or later a judge will order them to turn it over - and - considering there are no criminal charges to drop to make you go away - and you are suing them - its a beautiful situation to put some sunshine up their rears. . . the moment they have run out of appeals - and have to disclose their non-evidence and lack of probable cause, you will get a check. A nice fat one.
Click to expand...

My guess is that they will fight tooth and nail to *not* disclose any information to protect their "methods and sources" in the name of National Security. It's the same argument that other DHS agencies use (TSA, etc.) to prevent disclosure of the No-Fly list and other "intelligence" data. Remember that they've (somewhat) successfully used that national security argument to deny US Citizens the ability to board a plane/vessel to return to the US from foreign trips, either because they want to turn them into sources or for other reasons they don't disclose.

By using "national security", an agency can deny due process that must be used in other proceedings.

If one travels internationally for business, the CBP can make one's life miserable in the future if one is not "cooperative" (in their terms). And it can be done secretly using the national security/watch list exception.
 
comanchepilot said:
duress? I think there just was a case like that - I forgot which way it went - consent is consent - unless it was beaten out of you. Even giving you no choice, is still a choice.
Click to expand...

Thanks Joe. That was certainly my hunch.
 
I think we should LOTS more Government helpful regulations.
 
RichNY said:
If you get detained and it goes past just showing the required documents, do you have a right at that point to say I need to call my attorney before further questioning.
Click to expand...

yep. But then they will tell you that will just make things worse. Lengthen their detention etc.

The correct response after they review your documents is to say: "well that was fun, I'm leaving please step aside."

Forces put up or shut up.
 
wsuffa said:
My guess is that they will fight tooth and nail to *not* disclose any information to protect their "methods and sources" in the name of National Security. It's the same argument that other DHS agencies use (TSA, etc.) to prevent disclosure of the No-Fly list and other "intelligence" data. Remember that they've (somewhat) successfully used that national security argument to deny US Citizens the ability to board a plane/vessel to return to the US from foreign trips, either because they want to turn them into sources or for other reasons they don't disclose.

By using "national security", an agency can deny due process that must be used in other proceedings.

If one travels internationally for business, the CBP can make one's life miserable in the future if one is not "cooperative" (in their terms). And it can be done secretly using the national security/watch list exception.
Click to expand...

AMOC is not going to get away with sources and methods and national security as a defense - it has never worked ever. The government has lost every case where it has challenged the disclosure of relevant facts to a detention or refusal to allow travel. EVery single one. They keep trying - and keep losing.

A careful review of every single case to date has resulted in a federal judge ordering the disclosure of sources and methods in camera as well as providing necessary facts to the defense [no civil rights cases yet] or to the party litigant to get the information needed to present a case. CBP and DHS have actually lied to a federal court judge and then tried to cover up their lie when it was clear they put on the do not fly list with zero criteria for doing so and did it by mistake . .. and still tried to cover it up.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...rial-shows-that-doj-flat-out-lied-court.shtml
and
http://papersplease.org/wp/2014/04/...government-acted-in-bad-faith-in-no-fly-case/

As for the comment about using the 'list' as a weapon against those who stand up for their rights or those of others . . .

http://endthelie.com/2014/04/23/​fb...d-no-fly-list-to-recruit-muslims-as-informers/

The only way to stop this is to stand up to it and increase the cost of stopping people without cause - if we ALL challenged these detentions and filed civil rights cases against the government [paying your fees is always part of the settlement] sooner or later the cost of doing so will exceed their budgets and they will move on to something else.

I'm willing to endure a little bit of inconvenience to stand up for my liberty an that of my kids. . .
 
Moving on to the 'do I have to stop. .."

http://www.ezlawz.com/motion-to-sup...-of-probable-cause---fellow-officer-rule.html

I'm assuming that West Podunk PD gets a phone call from DHS that they want to talk to the pilot and passengers of 'that certain aircraft landing at XYZ airport at XXXzulu"

Those facts are no different from the Greenwich/Greenburgh case above- the PD has no probable cause independently corroborated. Keep that in mind.,

Also keep in mind that Officers Friendly and Canine are not going to let you leave and they are armed. The ONLY way to stop them from cooperating with the AMOC again is to make it costly for them to violate your civil rights . . . .
 
What the DEA [ok ok, CBP apparently] is using AMOC and special double secret data to determine that a particular aircraft 'may be' carrying contraband. They then send out an alert to the local state and local PD who often arrive with their SWAT toys and commence a felony vehicle stop for the CBP.

Unfortunately, the locals only have the same ability to stop and detain and discuss that CBP does. Absent a border crossing, they lack any reasonable suspicion other than their stupid computer algorithms or oft abused confidential informant - who is nothing more than some guy who saw you take off from an airport 'associated with smuggling.' [can you tell I've read a few totally made up affidavits?]

This means that they will need to disclose those computer methods and the nature of the CI in order to establish their reasonable suspicion. The problem for them is the nature of the person being detained. .. . no prior arrests, no prior convictions, no recent foreign travel and no evidence that the aircraft has ever been used in narcotics - and then perhaps a person traveling with their family. . . . all this really needs is a class action lawsuit to blow it open and end the program.

moving on - I can personally attest that drug dogs are not completely reliable. I had a client tell me that he had marijuana in a plastic tin inside a bag that was searched by a drug dog and it did not alert. The problem with dogs is there are no peer reviewed studies of their false positives - only police departments know about the false positive rates - and how many times have you heard of a dog alerting and the police, after an exhaustive search, finding nothing? Courts are going to have to take a hard look at this eventually -
 
Jim Logajan said:
ACLU Know Your Rights with the Border Patrol:
http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/ACLU Border Rights ENGLISH.pdf

Interesting video showing how some people have handled the Border Patrol and article "Border Patrol Takes "No" for an Answer at Internal Checkpoints":
http://www.texasobserver.org/border-patrol-takes-no-for-an-answer-at-internal-checkpoints/
Click to expand...

Their job is simple: look for those in the country who are not here properly. Now - the REAL reason is to intercept drugs, but they use the illegal alien as the foil for the search for drugs.

How can they determine who is in the country illegally using words? Without profiling?

Not possible. They claim they can - but ok - whatever. Remember the question: "Are you a citizen?" Why yes I am"

Ok - move along. They cannot detain you because you have an accent.

nothing to see here. . . .
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
What the DEA [ok ok, CBP apparently] is using AMOC and special double secret data to determine that a particular aircraft 'may be' carrying contraband. They then send out an alert to the local state and local PD who often arrive with their SWAT toys and commence a felony vehicle stop for the CBP.

Unfortunately, the locals only have the same ability to stop and detain and discuss that CBP does. Absent a border crossing, they lack any reasonable suspicion other than their stupid computer algorithms or oft abused confidential informant - who is nothing more than some guy who saw you take off from an airport 'associated with smuggling.' [can you tell I've read a few totally made up affidavits?]

This means that they will need to disclose those computer methods and the nature of the CI in order to establish their reasonable suspicion. The problem for them is the nature of the person being detained. .. . no prior arrests, no prior convictions, no recent foreign travel and no evidence that the aircraft has ever been used in narcotics - and then perhaps a person traveling with their family. . . . all this really needs is a class action lawsuit to blow it open and end the program.

moving on - I can personally attest that drug dogs are not completely reliable. I had a client tell me that he had marijuana in a plastic tin inside a bag that was searched by a drug dog and it did not alert. The problem with dogs is there are no peer reviewed studies of their false positives - only police departments know about the false positive rates - and how many times have you heard of a dog alerting and the police, after an exhaustive search, finding nothing? Courts are going to have to take a hard look at this eventually -
Click to expand...

Frankly, I see more incidents occurring as a result of the recent USSC decision in Navarette v. California.
 
Drug dogs can "alert" on command/signal by the handler. It's a bit of a joke.
 
comanchepilot said:
all this really needs is a class action lawsuit to blow it open and end the program.
Click to expand...

And there lies one of the biggest problems. Who wants to be the guinea pig for this? Who has the time, the money, the will, the ability to withstand the stress, etc?

As much as this jack-booted thug crap makes my blood boil, I don't think I'd have the resources (financial or otherwise) to withstand something like that.

This almost needs to happen to a retired multi-millionare/billionaire with plenty of time and money to stick it to them and see it through to the end. Unfortunately, those are probably exactly the people the thugs know they shouldn't mess with, and leave them alone. They pick on the rest of us poor schmucks with jobs, and families, and "normal" financial resources because they know we don't have as much tolerance to the pain.
 
I don't think an individual plaintiff putting up the money to start a class action is the norm. Doesn't the initial funding usually come from an organization, or from a law firm that hopes to be awarded substantial fees?
 
LoneAspen said:
And there lies one of the biggest problems. Who wants to be the guinea pig for this? Who has the time, the money, the will, the ability to withstand the stress, etc?

As much as this jack-booted thug crap makes my blood boil, I don't think I'd have the resources (financial or otherwise) to withstand something like that.

This almost needs to happen to a retired multi-millionare/billionaire with plenty of time and money to stick it to them and see it through to the end. Unfortunately, those are probably exactly the people the thugs know they shouldn't mess with, and leave them alone. They pick on the rest of us poor schmucks with jobs, and families, and "normal" financial resources because they know we don't have as much tolerance to the pain.
Click to expand...

We had our chance and blew it. The Kings, John and Martha, took the high road and didn't press charges. In hindsight, the low road would have been more effective.
 
So, regarding Probable Cause... if an officer says they are doing a search for "probable cause" (which is stronger than "reasonable suspicion"), is there any requirement for the officer to explain what "probable cause" (s)he has, if asked by you (the person whose property is being searched)?

If not, then this falls under "making stuff up as we go", and you really have no recourse at the time of the "search".

A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[2] Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public.

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.
Click to expand...
 
RichNY said:
We had our chance and blew it. The Kings, John and Martha, took the high road and didn't press charges. In hindsight, the low road would have been more effective.
Click to expand...


The Kings were a totally different situation. I believe the tail # was mistakenly listed as "stolen".

Pretty sure the same thing would happen to the driver of a "stolen" car.
 
Do you I think I've made myself a target?

Requester Name : Troy W
Date Submitted : 04/25/2014
CBP FOIA Request Status : Submitted

Description :
As a general aviation and humanitarian pilot, I am concerned by increasing reports of CBP and LEO detention, investigation, and search of domestic general aviation pilots, aircraft, and personal belongings at US inland airports for flights contained entirely within the borders of the United States. Some of these stops have been against personal friends of mine that I know to be of outstanding character and not a threat to the security of the United States nor involved in illicit activities. I am requesting a list of all such domestic investigations/detentions conducted since January 1, 2010, such records to include the date, airport, type of aircraft (make/model is sufficient, non-identifying is fine), the agencies involved, the agency / department that ordered the interception, and the reason / probable cause / suspicion that led to the subject aircraft or individuals being targeted for detention / investigation / search. I am also requesting copies of any policy documents, directives, or other related materials mandating or directing such searches, including the criterion used to select a specific aircraft or pilot of domestic flights as needing ground intervention and search.
Click to expand...
 
TangoWhiskey said:
So, regarding Probable Cause... if an officer says they are doing a search for "probable cause" (which is stronger than "reasonable suspicion"), is there any requirement for the officer to explain what "probable cause" (s)he has, if asked by you (the person whose property is being searched)?

If not, then this falls under "making stuff up as we go", and you really have no recourse at the time of the "search".
Click to expand...

nope - remember - they can lie to you. So why believe anything they say.

The only solution is to file a civil rights complaint against all departments involved - they all have procedures for that. Then notice a few depositions - start asking a few questions. It's not that hard.

You don't have to a) go to court to file a civil rights violation complaint b) the states all provide for discovery and c) a deposition under oath does not require a court reporter - notice a depo, sit down and chat - they are still under oath and still need to testify truthfully. You just go up the chain until you get to AMOC - then the complaint gets file against them for starting the who thing. . . .

Class actions are generally done on a contingency-fee basis - the problem is that I have not heard of a good case yet - EVERYONE ALWAYS CONSENTS. Good little citizens that they are.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Do you I think I've made myself a target?
Click to expand...

Response you will get in 270 Days:

"We have reviewed our files and there are no non-privileged documents responsive to your request."

Now, they have to identify the document by name, date etc, sufficiently to permit review in camera by a court. But they will not do that- then you must appeal the denial - and must timely follow the administrative procedures to complain about the non-response.

45 Days later they will respond:

"we have received your request. We will respond in detail to that request within 180 days as permitted by blah blah blah"

180 days later:

"We received your appeal and believe our prior response was sufficient under the Freedom of Information Act. If you believe we are wrong, you may bring an action under . . . . "

Its now late August 2015.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
So, regarding Probable Cause... if an officer says they are doing a search for "probable cause" (which is stronger than "reasonable suspicion"), is there any requirement for the officer to explain what "probable cause" (s)he has, if asked by you (the person whose property is being searched)?
Click to expand...

If they have probable cause, they don't need your consent. There's a real easy way to tell if they are FOS.
 
MAKG1 said:
If they have probable cause, they don't need your consent. There's a real easy way to tell if they are FOS.
Click to expand...

probable cause to search means an arrest is imminent - regardless of what they find. They have other evidence.

You need to develop a reasonable suspicion that crime has been or will be committed to justify a stop. I don't know how under any sort of scrutiny that an aircraft traveling from point A to point B is inherently suspicious enough to warrant a stop. The way they get vehicle stops is that pretty much anyone violates a traffic law - even if you have a transponder for EZ-Pass or similar in your windshield, or not signaling a lane change - you prob violate 10 traffic laws every time you leave your driveway and probably violate 2 just leaving it. So a stop is not a problem usually. There is legal independent basis to stop the vehicle and ask to search it, look inside or develop specific articulable facts upon which to base a further detention.

Not sure how they develop the independent reasonable suspicion in GA - you can generally pull up Flightaware.com and identify 2-3 flights between XXX and YYY in the IFR system at any given time over the last month - were all of those flight stopped and found to have contraband? Did they stop a flight last week between XXX and YYY with contraband? I'm trying to put the routing the aircraft is on into some basis for creating reasonable suspicion just from that . . . . simply departing Humboldt County Airport for Phoenix is not either malem prohibitum or inherently suspicious. Doing it 3 times a week for six months might be - but thats pretty overt. Doing Friday to monday am is not suspicious at all.

Combine it with a pilot with no record, or being a licensed doctor or lawyer - if they check that far? The probabilities drop to near zero.

Again - where is the reasonable suspicion to stop the aircraft? They don't KNOW who is flying it. So the aircraft itself needs to be inherently suspicious. . . . .

There are so many legal problems here just ab initio with the stop . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top