comanchepilot
En-Route
This really is the reason - you never freaking know. Look at Romney and the 47% comment - he got nailed by a bartender who was part of the great unwashed . . .
Another Warrantless Aircraft Search ( Iowa)
- Thread starter AdamZ
- Start date
This really is the reason - you never freaking know. Look at Romney and the 47% comment - he got nailed by a bartender who was part of the great unwashed . . .
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
Do a net search for "celebrity swatting" to find out just how often the police are used or abused by anonymous tipsters.
comanchepilot
En-Route
I'd never tell the prosecution about it - that rebuttal testimony.
Me: Officer, you testified my client consented to the search of his aircraft
Cop: Yes, that is correct.
Me: There is no chance you could be mistaken [sound of the trap opening]
Cop: None. [knowing that they searched his phone completely]
Me: 100% certainty that your search was the result of consent by the defendant.
Cop: Yes.
Me: What did you and what did he say?
Cop: I asked him if he minded if I took a look in his aircraft. He said, 'No problem, or words to that effect." [boy that cheese looks good]
Me: Your honor, I'd like marked and introduce an iPad mini bearing serial number - blah blah blah
Prosecutor: Objection. This is not on the dcoument list - blah blah blah
Me: This is my client's iPad mini which was mounted on the yoke inside his aircraft, I can bring him up for the limited purpose of identifying it and certifying what I am about to play has not been altered or removed from this iPad since it was created [bring my client to the stand, its his ipad, he turned on the audio recording function when the officer arrived at the aircraft before he got out, has not changed it since, etc etc etc
Judge: Ok - solely for the purpose of rebuttal counsel I'll mark as Defendant's Exhibit 1. OVer hte object of Prosecution, so noted.
Me: Officer, before I play this would you like to alter any of your prior testimony under oath. [whats that spring noise, ouch]
Cop: Uh. [right here - the smart ones say NO - because they don't want to be cross examined under oath about their lie. The stupid ones change their testimony on the stand - the BRILLIANT ones claim the fifth amendment]
Recording:
They will not lie overtly. They may try to claim implied consent. It is the only place most LEO's will not lie. . . at least directly or if they think they might be proven to be lying. . . they will generally stretch the truth at a traffic stop because they are dealing with the public and not lawyers - they make great witnesses - because they are such good liars.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Yeah, but in Illinois, it was illegal to record a police officer in the execution of their duties until last November, when the appeals court found it unconstitutional and the supreme court refused to hear the case! http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/...not-enforce-ban-on-recording-police-officers/
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Is there an echo in here?
Have you actually had that scenario play out? (It must really be something to watch!)
comanchepilot
En-Route
I have read it in a couple of cases . . . and heard first person stories.
Not an ipad - was a recording from a source the police did not expect.
Prob 2 times? does not happen alot since its hard to find an LEO who lies on the stand like that - they are not stupid.
Not an ipad - was a recording from a source the police did not expect.
Prob 2 times? does not happen alot since its hard to find an LEO who lies on the stand like that - they are not stupid.
comanchepilot
En-Route
Hello hello hello
echo echo echo
Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon . . . Manny Mota Mota Mota . . .
Unbeliever
Pre-takeoff checklist
California does have the option for petitioning for a verdict of factual innocence. The LA Times recently did a 2 part piece on a domestic abuse case on how an ex-husband was brought up on charges when the ex-wife staged injuries and lied to the police about who inflicted them. The ex-husband was able to prove (with police assistance, actually) that the ex-wife's story was BS, and was able to get a factually innocent ruling from a judge.
Now that's something that California is violently opposed to. They will make your life very difficult if you lobby for nullification anywhere near a jury box, even as a juror.
I've actually gotten out of a search that way. Police were doing random searches of cars leaving a venue parking lot and tried to bluff me into a consent.
Cop: Can I search your vehicle?
Me: I do not consent to any search.
Cop: Why aren't you letting me search? Do you have something to hide?
Me: I do not consent to any search.
Cop: Your refusal is suspicious and gives me probable cause to search, make your life easier and consent. (paraphrased from a stern talking-down-to)
Me: US v. Fuentes, 9th district "Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause". Try again.
Cop: Uuuhhhh.... move along.
(California is in the 9th).
Edit: I was in a convertible with the top down. He could see everything other than what was in the trunk from where he was standing.
--Carlos V.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
I actually would enjoy Jury Duty and would have been on a Murder 1 case with possibility of Death Sentence were it not for the Judge being kind when I said I already had paid for tickets to go to Hawaii during the personal interview round after 300 potential jurors were called.
He didn't have to call that a true "hardship" after all, but I think he understood he'd probably be trying another Murder case instigated by Karen if he didn't see fit to let me go.
The questionnaires we filled out prior to the personal interviews and group sessions were fascinating -- you could see things the Attorneys from both sides were trying to eliminate in the juror pool.
denverpilot
Tied Down
By the way, that guy went away for Life and did join Death Row I believe.
paflyer
Final Approach
Pilot: I do not consent to a search of my aircraft or my person. Do you have a warrant?
Cop: Sir, please. You need get down off that wing and stand over there. If you interfere with me I am going to have you arrested for interference and obstruction. I'll give you one last chance to make it easy on yourself and let me search this airplane the easy way. . . .
Pilot: ?????
Cop: Sir, please. You need get down off that wing and stand over there. If you interfere with me I am going to have you arrested for interference and obstruction. I'll give you one last chance to make it easy on yourself and let me search this airplane the easy way. . . .
Pilot: ?????
denverpilot
Tied Down
Not even that polite. You've forgotten how it went for the Kings.
(At gunpoint...)
"Exit the aircraft and lay face down on the pavement with your hands where I can see them."
Or similar. The search was presumed.
I think it was established earlier in the thread that you have the right to withhold consent, but you do not have the right to stop them if they decide to search anyway. You should not try to physically block access to the aircraft.
What withholding consent does is to open up the possibility for your attorney to challenge the legality of the search if the case gets before a judge.
DaleB
Final Approach
Anyone who believes that has never been charged with anything. The theory is that the police and prosecutor have to prove you did something wrong. The reality is that they will state their case, and the judge and jury will absolutely take them at their word unless you have some way of proving otherwise. After all, you wouldn't have been charged if you weren't a criminal scumbag, right?
TomHaines
Pre-takeoff checklist
AOPA questions CBP authority to search aircraft as questionable detentions continue. 14 questions posed by AOPA to CBP about their authority. Expected cursory response back, but this is far from over. http://ow.ly/lmhOM
They do have the right to search any 'conveyance or vessel' anywhere in the US at any time for the presence of aliens (this is under the immigration powers they have). That inspection is limited to getting access to any compartment big enough to store a human. I understand their authority to search for contraband (under the customs powers) is much more limited, they either have to show that you came from the border or you have to be within X miles of a POE. It looks like CBP air&marine interprets those laws a bit differently in that they call anything they do 'national security' and hope to escape further scrutiny that way.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Let's remember exactly where the failure in that case was, the crap database. If you are driving around with the license plates of a wanted drug smuggler you can expect a felony stop. This was a real case of garbage in garbage out and it is the folks responsible for the lack of maintenance of the database that hold the blame.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Incorrect in my view. Databases are tools. When someone decides to stop thinking and act upon data in a database, they have not a damned clue about how error-prone most data-entry and retrieval systems are. (Re: this incident, various TSA problems with people who have similar names, etc.)
Nothing requires, note the word... Requires... anyone to do anything about information given from another agency's database.
Realistically yes. They're going to. Do they have to? No.
Actually, no.
422 U.S. 873
95 S.Ct. 2574.
45 L.Ed.2d 607
UNITED STATES, Petitioner,
v.
Felix Humberto BRIGNONI-PONCE.
No. 74—114.
Argued Feb. 18, 1975.
Decided June 30, 1975.
Syllabus
The Fourth Amendment held not to allow a roving patrol of the Border Patrol to stop a vehicle near the Mexican border and question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. Except at the border and its functional equivalents, patrolling officers may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences therefrom, reasonably warranting suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country. Pp. 878-887.
(a) Because of the important governmental interest in preventing the illegal entry of aliens at the border, the minimal intrusion of a brief stop, and the absence of practical alternatives for policing the border, an officer, whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, may stop the car briefly, question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause. Pp. 878-882.
(b) To allow roving patrols the broad and unlimited discretion urged by the Government to stop all vehicles in the border area without any reason to suspect that they have violated any law, would not be 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 882-883.
(c) Assuming that Congress has the power to admit aliens on condition that they submit to reasonable questioning about their right to be in the country, such power cannot diminish the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens who may be mistaken for aliens. The Fourth Amendment therefore forbids stopping persons for questioning about their citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens. Pp. 883-884.
9 Cir., 499 F.2d 1109, affirmed.
Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
John J. Cleary, Redwood City, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
422 U.S. 873
95 S.Ct. 2574.
45 L.Ed.2d 607
UNITED STATES, Petitioner,
v.
Felix Humberto BRIGNONI-PONCE.
No. 74—114.
Argued Feb. 18, 1975.
Decided June 30, 1975.
Syllabus
The Fourth Amendment held not to allow a roving patrol of the Border Patrol to stop a vehicle near the Mexican border and question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. Except at the border and its functional equivalents, patrolling officers may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences therefrom, reasonably warranting suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country. Pp. 878-887.
(a) Because of the important governmental interest in preventing the illegal entry of aliens at the border, the minimal intrusion of a brief stop, and the absence of practical alternatives for policing the border, an officer, whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, may stop the car briefly, question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause. Pp. 878-882.
(b) To allow roving patrols the broad and unlimited discretion urged by the Government to stop all vehicles in the border area without any reason to suspect that they have violated any law, would not be 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 882-883.
(c) Assuming that Congress has the power to admit aliens on condition that they submit to reasonable questioning about their right to be in the country, such power cannot diminish the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens who may be mistaken for aliens. The Fourth Amendment therefore forbids stopping persons for questioning about their citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens. Pp. 883-884.
9 Cir., 499 F.2d 1109, affirmed.
Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
John J. Cleary, Redwood City, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
Ted I would buy your knee jerk defense of IRS political activists if they were nondenominational. Being that they were specifically targeting groups viewed to be hostile to the current administration they were obviously doing selective enforcement of rules.. Your defense is grossly misplaced.
Hi ho, hi ho, so off to SZ we go.
Anyway, if being held up by law enforcement simply say you do NOT consent to any search. Be utterly clear. "I do not consent to any search of myself or my property."
(do not do anything stupid like raising your hands or stepping towards an officer - they live for that - or cursing them out)
Just keep asking, "Am I under arrest.?" (of course you would know if you were because you would be face down on the tarmac with a knee in your back)
And when they say "no" then you immediately ask, "Am I free to go?"
And just keep asking "Am I free to go."
This puts them in a small legal bind.
After a few iterations of telling you that you cannot go, it begins to seep into the group collection of thick skulls that they are way, way out on thin legal ice.
They have not arrested you because they do not have probable cause.
Which also makes it legally dicey to hold you against your will once you ask to go. (if you don't ask to go they are free to keep you all night arguing to the judge that you 'voluntarily' remained there)
Now, you cannot stop men with badges and guns and police authority from doing what they want to do right then and there.
What you are accomplishing is making them think about what might happen if/when you drag them into court.
Make em nervous about higher-ups demanding "Whut the hell were you doin?" and they will walk away.
denny-o (old police surgeon who understands street bulls)
Hi ho, hi ho, so off to SZ we go.
Anyway, if being held up by law enforcement simply say you do NOT consent to any search. Be utterly clear. "I do not consent to any search of myself or my property."
(do not do anything stupid like raising your hands or stepping towards an officer - they live for that - or cursing them out)
Just keep asking, "Am I under arrest.?" (of course you would know if you were because you would be face down on the tarmac with a knee in your back)
And when they say "no" then you immediately ask, "Am I free to go?"
And just keep asking "Am I free to go."
This puts them in a small legal bind.
After a few iterations of telling you that you cannot go, it begins to seep into the group collection of thick skulls that they are way, way out on thin legal ice.
They have not arrested you because they do not have probable cause.
Which also makes it legally dicey to hold you against your will once you ask to go. (if you don't ask to go they are free to keep you all night arguing to the judge that you 'voluntarily' remained there)
Now, you cannot stop men with badges and guns and police authority from doing what they want to do right then and there.
What you are accomplishing is making them think about what might happen if/when you drag them into court.
Make em nervous about higher-ups demanding "Whut the hell were you doin?" and they will walk away.
denny-o (old police surgeon who understands street bulls)
denverpilot
Tied Down
"You started in California and flew from west to east."
Given that MOST states are east of California, I can't imagine that they have the manpower to search every plane that does that.
Given that MOST states are east of California, I can't imagine that they have the manpower to search every plane that does that.
4CornerFlyer
Line Up and Wait
Apparently a country that can't afford to staff its Air Traffic Control facilities, let alone maintain its highways and bridges, has an endless amount of money to fund paramilitary police operations in search of marijuana.
Jon
Jon
Florida Cracker
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 12,360
- Display Name
Display name:
Florida Cracker
The never ending fraud of a government that hides a multitude of sins under the headings, "war on drugs" and "national security."
Last edited:
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
I believe that a lot of police departments get funding from confiscation of alleged drug-related property, even if that isn't established in a court of law.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1522324581/Drug-money-pads-DA-police-budgets
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91490480
Yup....... it is a HUGE revenue stream for some LE departments...
NoHeat
Final Approach
As an editor, I'm sure you noticed that not only did they fail to respond, they also failed to write good sentences.
Let's look at their two meager sentences:
“In accordance with the Privacy Act among other legal and policy considerations, CBP does not release information to the public about individuals who may be encountered by Air Interdiction Agents"
"In accordance with ... legal and policy considerations" is a poor construction. The noun "consideration" is a weak throw-away word here. This sentence would have been a little better written as "In accordance with ... laws and policies." Even so, the laws and policies are not specified, so they give no weight to the argument. They are throw-aways as well. Omitting them altogether would have been an improvement.
"Although we regret any inconvenience that these activities may have, we welcome an open dialogue with the general aviation community as we work together to maintain civil liberties and protect against threats to the U.S.”
"Although" was the wrong way to start this sentence. The two ideas that the word introduce, regret and welcome, are not in conflict in this sentence. It's like saying "Although it's a good morning, the weather is nice." Dumb.
The writer forgot the word "caused." It is missing just before the comma. Even dumber.
DaleB
Final Approach
Here's my theory.
There are billions and billions of our tax dollars to be had for empire building. All you have to do is build something you can pass off as a credible excuse to get enough money to become king of your own little corner of the bureaucracy. Plus - you've got to justify the billions you already get.
So, you send jump-suited troops out to do random stop-and-search operations, involving as many LEOs as possible, and hope you get lucky once in a while. All it takes is ONE little roach, or ONE expired or borrowed or mis-labeled prescription, and all the sudden you have a "successful drug interdiction", at least as far as it's going to get reported in this year's statistics. And the local LEOs love you, because you give them a chance to try out all their new Kevlar and tactical gear and armored vehicles, purchased with our tax dollars courtesy of DHS. Now they can claim that they were called upon to support the Feds in a drug interdiction. It makes the numbers look good, and helps them get more funding -- which is the name of the game.
You make sure your troops are armed with the most important tools of all -- the tools to make criminals let them do what they want (and by "criminal" we mean anyone not working with DHS at that moment. There are no innocent citizens, just criminals they haven't caught - yet.) Lies, deceit, intimidation, and of course the handy drug dog, whose handler can say, "Uh, sure, yeah, right - I think he alerted." There's your probable cause, go ahead and dismantle that vehicle along with the rights and freedoms of the occupants.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a huge fan of enforcing laws. I'm not anti-authority - but I am anti-abuse-thereof. This kind of nonsense has got to stop. If you have a REAL reason to think I'm a drug smuggler - actual evidence, for example, or a credible tip, or you see me coming across the Mexican border flying nap-of-earth along creek beds - then, sure, get a warrant and search away. I think, though, that we're seeing the 4th Amendment run through the shredder. The sad part is that most people just won't care until it's THEIR car pulled over and dismantled for no reason. By the time it's happened enough to make the majority of the country take notice, I'm afraid it will be too late.
Sorry for the lengthy rant, and I hope this doesn't send the thread to the SZ. If so, mods please feel free to delete it.
There are billions and billions of our tax dollars to be had for empire building. All you have to do is build something you can pass off as a credible excuse to get enough money to become king of your own little corner of the bureaucracy. Plus - you've got to justify the billions you already get.
So, you send jump-suited troops out to do random stop-and-search operations, involving as many LEOs as possible, and hope you get lucky once in a while. All it takes is ONE little roach, or ONE expired or borrowed or mis-labeled prescription, and all the sudden you have a "successful drug interdiction", at least as far as it's going to get reported in this year's statistics. And the local LEOs love you, because you give them a chance to try out all their new Kevlar and tactical gear and armored vehicles, purchased with our tax dollars courtesy of DHS. Now they can claim that they were called upon to support the Feds in a drug interdiction. It makes the numbers look good, and helps them get more funding -- which is the name of the game.
You make sure your troops are armed with the most important tools of all -- the tools to make criminals let them do what they want (and by "criminal" we mean anyone not working with DHS at that moment. There are no innocent citizens, just criminals they haven't caught - yet.) Lies, deceit, intimidation, and of course the handy drug dog, whose handler can say, "Uh, sure, yeah, right - I think he alerted." There's your probable cause, go ahead and dismantle that vehicle along with the rights and freedoms of the occupants.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a huge fan of enforcing laws. I'm not anti-authority - but I am anti-abuse-thereof. This kind of nonsense has got to stop. If you have a REAL reason to think I'm a drug smuggler - actual evidence, for example, or a credible tip, or you see me coming across the Mexican border flying nap-of-earth along creek beds - then, sure, get a warrant and search away. I think, though, that we're seeing the 4th Amendment run through the shredder. The sad part is that most people just won't care until it's THEIR car pulled over and dismantled for no reason. By the time it's happened enough to make the majority of the country take notice, I'm afraid it will be too late.
Sorry for the lengthy rant, and I hope this doesn't send the thread to the SZ. If so, mods please feel free to delete it.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Apparently a large amount of the electorate consider anyone not supporting massive amounts of national security to be a liberal traitor to America. So what the heck do you really expect?
Show me anyone that runs on a platform of weakening police and military that gets elected for office higher than dog catcher? It doesn't happen. We get the government we deserve.
NoHeat
Final Approach
Yes.
And here's the king. Tex Alles.
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/organization/assist_comm_off/amo_assistant_commissioner.xml.
edit:smaller photo
Last edited:
comanchepilot
En-Route
And I do believe that they filed and presently have pending a 42 USC 1983 claim against DEA and the officers and various departments involved due to the gross negligence of how that came to be . . .
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Yes.
And here's the king. Tex Alles.
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/organization/assist_comm_off/amo_assistant_commissioner.xml.
Could you post a slightly larger picture?
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Hmmm, CBP/DHS/TSA agents doing federal inspections(in this case, illegal) have rights?
One of us has a very skewed understanding of the word 'rights' as it relates to citizens, and the country they live in.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
From the article:
**Fresh reports from pilots subjected to ramp checks and aircraft searches suggest a pattern, though federal officials remain, essentially, moot on the details.
I wonder if that's like remaining 'mute'?
Once more, AOPA is requesting information from a federal agency. How about they open the damn checkbook and hire a federal litigation atty to get this shyte stopped, or get to the bottom of the authority. But no - the AOPA wouldn't want to do that.
Has anyone noticed the CBP/DHS never happen to stop a jet coming from CA, or flying near the border? It's always a light plane, or small twin.
Hmmmmm, whatever they can get away with, they will.
Last edited:
NoHeat
Final Approach
Could you post a slightly larger picture?
It's a king-size picture.
Of the king.
Of bureaucratic stupidity.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Maybe because jets are almost always on IFR flight plans? Some of the reports we've seen suggest the Federales look askance at people flying around willy-nilly without benefit of official blessing and supervision.
comanchepilot
En-Route
because, that's, you know, called Freedom.