Another Warrantless Aircraft Search ( Iowa)

JeffDG said:
An aircraft is a vehicle, and as such, the police do not need a warrant to search. They need either consent or probable cause, which they said they had.

Had the police found something, that probable cause determination could have been challenged and the evidence excluded if appropriate PC was not present.
Click to expand...

mmm thats not exactly accurate. unless the police see contraband in plain view or they believe for example that a person is being held in the trunk they need a warrant, at least in PA they do. There is something called an inventory search but that does not happen until after a vehicle is impounded. Police can also conduct a Terry type search of the area in the reach and control of the suspect for the officers protection. Each states have different laws and where you live the laws may be different.



Norman said:
Simply stated, even if the inspector/officer has probable cause you have the right to deny a search unless he has a warrant. OTOH, if there are two bags of 'grass' in plain sight expect handcuffs.
Click to expand...

You have the right not to give permission but you don't have the right to physically interfere with the search.

MAKG1 said:
Where do you get that?

The probable cause exception is well known.
Click to expand...

mmm again not accurate at least not in all states.

register@teamandras.com said:
If true, why would they ask for consent?
Click to expand...

Because then the eliminate a vast majority of the vehicle operators arguments to suppress what ever may have been found.
 
N801BH said:
Too bad you didn't video tape it... That would have made a great You Tube episode..:yes::yes::)
Click to expand...

I actually started laughing when the LEO said,
"IF you have nothing to hide and did nothing wrong, why would you refuse a search?
What are you hiding in there that you are afraid I'll find?
You better comply because I can't "help" you once we force you to consent."

When I realized how red he got when I laughed in his face, I thought I would be spending the next 23 years in Gitmo.

Funny thing is, I'm old, fat and partially crippled. What did the dope think I was carrying, my TEA Party membership card?

Called the Sheriff and demanded a call back. When the zone Major called, I let him know exactly what happened and how disrespectful, dishonest and disgraceful his offics behaved. The guy said he actually pulled the dash cam footage, spoke to the officers that were present and felt the officers did not give me ...

Wait for it...

Excellent CUSTOMER service.

No kidding.

And promised he would see to it that they had additional training.

What a joke.
 
Last edited:
Well FC he was trained (well) on how to get people to consent to searches,

What he lacked was the skill to know when to use that training, or had been instructed that to use the knowledge of when to use it was "profiling" and therefor evil.
 
Cops serve their masters in gov't against the people. Simple. Here is a great example of reality. Tell me how the people or democracy was served by the man with the gun doing the bidding of his puppet masters?
 
They are starting to act more, and more like Brown Shirts fulfilling the wishes of corrupt leaders.
 
Anthony said:
They are starting to act more, and more like Brown Shirts fulfilling the wishes of corrupt leaders.
Click to expand...

Sadly, there is no political side(other than the Libertarians) that is willing to stop it. I'll stop there and keep this out of SZ.
 
Skylane81E said:
Now that I have gathered some data lets debunk this lie

583 people were killed by non military police last year

532 people were murdered in Chicago alone in 2012


Got any more lies?
Click to expand...

Good to see the police are keeping up with Chicago.
 
SkyHog said:
:D

More of this. And more using AOPA's resources to help without the explicit "See, now subscribe to our legal plan so we can help you too!" stuff.

You guys are on the right track!!
Click to expand...

It just took a few days....Got the email this morning about legal services.
 
murphey said:
It just took a few days....Got the email this morning about legal services.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Is there any evidence, whatsoever, that the AOPA Legal Services had anything to do with the work done in this situation?
 
The thing now is that they will always claim 'probable cause.' However, if they have probable cause to search then they don't need consent. So why ask?

What needs to happen in these situations, and I'll take the case if we can find someone who:

1. States they do not consent to a search
2. Gets searched without a warrant anyway and,
3. Is released when they find nothing.

The only way to stop these searches is make it expensive for the those involved.

If they find nothing then you sue them for violation of civil rights under color of authority. This forces them to tell what their probable cause is.

There is a pending a similar case - where a boat on an inland waterway more than 100 miles from a border was searched -nothing was found. The owner sued. The government claimed 'national security' as to why they could not tell the reasons. The district court said bull, tell me. The government appealed to the 8th Cir. The USSC will have to rule on it eventually but all this double secret facts stuff is going to have to stop eventually or there is no point to the 4th amendment any longer. . . .
 
register@teamandras.com said:
If true, why would they ask for consent?
Click to expand...

Because once you give it, they no longer have to justify the search with objectively articulable facts . . .. and those pesky facts have more than once resulted in suppression of evidence discovered in the cars of idiots who give consent. . .
 
comanchepilot said:
Because once you give it, they no longer have to justify the search with objectively articulable facts . . .. and those pesky facts have more than once resulted in suppression of evidence discovered in the cars of idiots who give consent. . .
Click to expand...

What?!

You mean there is a "right" way to do this and yet they still ignored it:mad2::rofl:
 
Most Americans are utterly unaware that a police officer can lie, overtly and covertly, mislead you about your rights, and pretty say anything, not respond when they are actually required to respond, make up facts, make up law, make up consequences.

When asked if police should be allowed to lie to criminals - most people think its OK since, after all, they are criminals. When the question is asked more neutrally, as in, should the police be able to lie to you to obtain your consent to search your home or car, its about 95% No. It is exactly the same conduct.

Which brings us to the next point - all of us are criminals.

You cannot drive from point A to B without violating some law. Failure to completely stop at a stop sign before the limit line. Changing lanes without signaling for the required distance or time. No front license plate in states that require it. The registration sticker is not completely visible due to yor "I'd Rather Be Flying" license plate frame . . . I would say that probably you could drive along, trying to obey every law, and a cop would have you pulled over within a mile . . . .

Same thing with Aviation - dump that sumped 100LL on the ramp? EPA violation.

Oil leaking out your breather tube? violation.

W&B for this flight? Don't know? Violation.

Incorrect radio phraseology? Violation.

Bust your assigned altitude? Violation

If they want you, they'll get you.

Which is why the ONLY response to Law Enforcement is invocation of the right to remain silent. Period. You need to state: I intend to remain silent.

If you are out driving Friday or Saturday evenings between 8pm and 3am - the police are looking for any pretext to stop you to look for signs of intoxication. Literally every single traffic stop is a DUI stop. Keep that in mind - and react just as if it is one, keeping in mind that speaking, the FST and the 'preliminary' bac test are all covered by the 'right to remain silent.'


I have several stories over 30 years of people trying to be helpful who later get accused to lying to authorities because they forgot a minor detail or got the date wrong for something that happened months ago. And then they were forced to defend themselves when the original crime, which may not have even involved them or anyone in their family or friends circle, was never prosecuted . . . .

Shut up. Period. Be polite. Firm. And move along. You do NOT even to stop and talk to the police if you choose not to. When they ask you to stop and chat - "no, thank you."
 
Last edited:
Skylane81E said:
What?!

You mean there is a "right" way to do this and yet they still ignored it:mad2::rofl:
Click to expand...

where is that sarcasm hashtag when you need it!

I should have the said:

Discovery of otherwise suppressible evidence in the cars of idiots who consent. . .
Click to expand...

The first case of police lying involving suppression I think was a drug case, where someone had consented to a search to a car because the cop stated he already knew it was there - and the drugs were secreted in fender well - and he searched the trunk and thumped the fenders with his knuckles and heard the sound difference . . . .

anyway
 
comanchepilot said:
where is that sarcasm hashtag when you need it!

I should have the said:



The first case of police lying involving suppression I think was a drug case, where someone had consented to a search to a car because the cop stated he already knew it was there - and the drugs were secreted in fender well - and he searched the trunk and thumped the fenders with his knuckles and heard the sound difference . . . .

anyway
Click to expand...

Does swing both ways on the consent thing though, rolling in ready for war will likely hurt the cops come the day when they eventually stumble onto something. Nothing like handing the defense a coercion argument.
 
I think there are two core problems here.

First, if we have a corrupt government, it because it was elected by a corrupt electorate. If more than half the population was educated and outraged, we could have change. But we're too fat and happy to turn from meaningless distractions and pay attention to things that really matter.

Second, I'm afraid some people who choose to enter law enforcement do it because they enjoy the exercise of authority over other people.

Combine #1 with #2 and you have an environment ripe for abuse of your rights.
 
comanchepilot said:
Most Americans are utterly unaware that a police officer can lie, overtly and covertly, mislead you about your rights, and pretty say anything, not respond when they are actually required to respond, make up facts, make up law, make up consequences.

When asked if police should be allowed to lie to criminals - most people think its OK since, after all, they are criminals. When the question is asked more neutrally, as in, should the police be able to lie to you to obtain your consent to search your home or car, its about 95% No. It is exactly the same conduct.

Which brings us to the next point - all of us are criminals.
Click to expand...
but but but....no one is a criminal until determined guilty by a jury of our peers, right? Until then, we're all innocent?

[where's that sarcasm widget when you need it?]
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
comanchepilot said:
Most Americans are utterly unaware that a police officer can lie, overtly and covertly, mislead you about your rights, and pretty say anything, not respond when they are actually required to respond, make up facts, make up law, make up consequences.

When asked if police should be allowed to lie to criminals - most people think its OK since, after all, they are criminals. When the question is asked more neutrally, as in, should the police be able to lie to you to obtain your consent to search your home or car, its about 95% No. It is exactly the same conduct.

Which brings us to the next point - all of us are criminals.
Click to expand...
but but but....no one is a criminal until determined guilty by a jury of our peers, right? Until then, we're all innocent?

[where's that sarcasm widget when you need it?]
Click to expand...

Courts are not needed for you to be a criminal, only to make you a convict,
 
Skylane81E said:
Courts are not needed for you to be a criminal, only to make you a convict,
Click to expand...

Exactly!

I've always bristled at the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty." That's all well and good legally...but you're either innoicent or guilty. It's a question of fact that occurs when the event occurs.

If I shoot you in the head, I'm guilty as of that instant. I cannot be legally punished for that action until I've been proven guilty, but I'm still guilty before, and even in the event I'm not convicted.
 
Jeff and Duncan hit it on the head [oops, does that make me a criminal?]

The phrase innocent til proven guilty is a misnomer because the verdict from a court or jury is 'Not Guilty' which is a whole lot different than innocent. . . .

I don't tell people that "I've received about 12-15 traffic citations in my life and I've been innocent of all of them . . . " what I say is that "I have never been convicted of a moving violation . . . ." a tremendous difference . . .
 
JeffDG said:
Exactly!

I've always bristled at the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty." That's all well and good legally...but you're either innoicent or guilty. It's a question of fact that occurs when the event occurs.

If I shoot you in the head, I'm guilty as of that instant. I cannot be legally punished for that action until I've been proven guilty, but I'm still guilty before, and even in the event I'm not convicted.
Click to expand...

People like to drop an important word,

You are not "innocent untill proven guilty"

You are "presumed innocent untill proven guilty"
 
The other point that probably 90% plus are ignorant about is that the police do not owe anyone an individual duty to even do their job. You are literally and legally completely on your own when it comes to person or property.

Police can witness you being attacked, have the ability to do something about it, and not lift a finger and they have zero liability for doing so.

The next time some of you may think that being armed is a luxury we can ill afford in this society, imagine for a moment your wife or daughter being attacked by someone larger and better experienced in violence than you are, and the police never arrive because they have higher ranking people to protect.

Take this to heart: You are legally on your own when it comes to protection of property or person. The police owe you no individual duty to do anything to protect you or your property . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
The thing now is that they will always claim 'probable cause.' However, if they have probable cause to search then they don't need consent. So why ask?

What needs to happen in these situations, and I'll take the case if we can find someone who:

1. States they do not consent to a search
2. Gets searched without a warrant anyway and,
3. Is released when they find nothing.

The only way to stop these searches is make it expensive for the those involved.

If they find nothing then you sue them for violation of civil rights under color of authority. This forces them to tell what their probable cause is.

There is a pending a similar case - where a boat on an inland waterway more than 100 miles from a border was searched -nothing was found. The owner sued. The government claimed 'national security' as to why they could not tell the reasons. The district court said bull, tell me. The government appealed to the 8th Cir. The USSC will have to rule on it eventually but all this double secret facts stuff is going to have to stop eventually or there is no point to the 4th amendment any longer. . . .
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this too. In cases where they search without either a warrant or probable cause, and don't find anything, if there is no consequence, then there is no incentive to stop doing it. :(
 
JeffDG said:
Exactly!

I've always bristled at the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty." That's all well and good legally...but you're either innoicent or guilty. It's a question of fact that occurs when the event occurs.

If I shoot you in the head, I'm guilty as of that instant. I cannot be legally punished for that action until I've been proven guilty, but I'm still guilty before, and even in the event I'm not convicted.
Click to expand...

True, but I think the phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." That's not the same thing as being innocent.
 
JeffDG said:
Sorry, but the average person who isn't smart enough to avoid jury duty will continue to bleat like little sheep.
Click to expand...

Oh, now you said it.

You may borrow my fire suit if you like.
 
Why would that be controversial?
 
A remarkably informative and civil discussion here.

As to the original article, until there's open disclosure by the various law enforcement agencies, we won't know the story. I see the two following possibilities:

1. The pilot was arbitrarily harassed. Flying east/west and squawking 1200 is not probable cause. There needs to be serious LEO repercussions here. As much as I'm suspicious of cops at times, I don't think this is likely.

2. Someone "tipped" the cops that the pilot was carrying contraband. Either in good faith or falsely to get the guy harassed. I'd put my money on this one. The cops will keep their mouths shut because they don't want to look like greater fools. Nor do they want to be held accountable for their overreaching.
 
comanchepilot said:
Because once you give it, they no longer have to justify the search with objectively articulable facts . . .. and those pesky facts have more than once resulted in suppression of evidence discovered in the cars of idiots who give consent. . .
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, other than ethics, what's to prevent a law enforcement officer from claiming he was given verbal consent, even when he wasn't?
 
EdFred said:
Like that's going to stop one who's going to lie to keep from lying.
Click to expand...

Just needs to do it once when someone's iPhone is in their pocket recording the encounter...and his credibility will be shot entirely to hell...ain't technology grand!
 
Skylane81E said:
Rule #1 someone is always recording
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, by the time that the police officer would lie about consent, he'd already know if there was a video, right? The joys of discovery should reveal that.
 
SkyHog said:
Unless I'm mistaken, by the time that the police officer would lie about consent, he'd already know if there was a video, right? The joys of discovery should reveal that.
Click to expand...

Depends who has the tape, defense can spring evidence on the prosecution, just not vice versa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top