I'm on the Homeland Security Watch List!

Just be thankful you did not have foreign language flash cards in your plane. Between that and your long hair, you would have been shipped to some dark hole.
 
Better Ted than me. Had that been me I'd still be in jail for braining the SOBs after they tried search my personal property without probable cause or a warrant. What a bunch of BS. My real worry is sooner or later a party in power will use this nonsense against an opponent.
 
And it's about to get worse in commercial airports.

TSA had a propaganda piece in McNews today (you know it's propaganda: it was written by one Thomas Frank and followed up by a companion post on the TSA blog) stating that they are about to start running explosive test swabs on the hands of passengers AT THE GATE. The explosive trace detectors are sensitive to (among other things) glycerine (used in most hand lotions) and nitrogen compounds (used in household fertilizer).

Nothing was stated about how they'll resolve the alarms, but passengers that have experienced this kind of testing at checkpoints have found delays of 30 minutes to two hours as TSA ransacks their bags, tests each item in the bag, and calls a bomb officer from the local PD.

I predict hundreds of people will miss their flights and there will be any number of concourse evacuations.

This will truly be a more invasive form of gate rape.

Another case of a "solution" that causes many more problems.
 
Geez Ted.... You are right.. no good deed goes unpunished.:yesnod::mad2:..

As someone else said I don't play well with others either , at least when I smell a BS set up. I will consent to a search every time knowing I have nothing to hide and I always get the last word in when they find NOTHING.:yesnod:.

Long story short.

When Cheney was VP he would come home which is/was here in Jackson Hole. I was the contractor building 15,000 SF for the FBO. Guy who owns and runs it is a great guy and a good friend to the SS. That didn't seem to make a difference though as every time the VP showed up I got the 3rd degree, had my truck searched numerous times. The SS would put on a show of force and we all called them the "ear ache" people.:rofl:.

My favorite trick was belittle them politely. I would walk into the lobby, they would refuse to let me on the ramp, even when the VP was 20 minutes out from coming onto the airport grounds.. I would simply go back out the front door, walk to the next hangar, open the door with my key, walk through that hangar, out onto the ramp and back into the same door they refused me to go through. I would make it a point to say good morning/afternoon to the same ear ache person who tried to limit my access to the ramp. I really had a hard time not to laugh in their face and they would get sooo friggin ****ed. I did the same thing when they denied me access through the drive through gates. I would simply go the the next ramp gate, scan my card, drive onto the ramp and then proceed to the gate they kept me from entering and drive out that gate.:rofl::rofl::rofl:.

I was just trying to go to work to earn a living and they didn't see it that way.:nonod: I was never a threat and they knew it but they never would cut me any slack and I didn't cut them any either.

And you can bet they are reading this right now too, which is all the more strange thing about Teds case, they 'should' have known he was rescueing critters. Funny how they only see things their way. To put it in perspective Ted was hassled one time,,,, so far.:incazzato:.

Cheney was VP for 8 years so I am applying for sainthood.:smile::yesnod:
 
tonycondon said:
your last known destination was in the southwest. then all of the sudden a flight plan pops up for you departing liberal for north central iowa, very near two major interstate highways. Nothing in between to connect the dots so they can only think you are coming into Liberal from somewhere South. And you're doing it in the middle of the night. Plus they've busted at least two other airplanes in Liberal in the last couple months for doing the same sort of thing. I can see why they thought you were suspicious.
Click to expand...

Ah, but perhaps they had information about the flights beyond "just some guy flying around."

According to:
http://www.ksag.org/page/aircraft-transporting-drugs-busted-in-liberal

Another suspect had been identified in California. Okay, it's not perfectly clear that the other suspect had been identified prior to the arrest in Liberal but no clear reason to suspect the flight was given.

A short review of a few facts should have tipped the feds and locals that the flight was innocent. No known contacts with drug traffickers. Flight following in and a flight plan out. Published accounts of the aircraft performing dog rescue missions. Of course when the folks doing the deed don't stop and think ("We're only doing or jobs" :nono:), innocent folks get abused.
 
wsuffa said:
And it's about to get worse in commercial airports.

TSA had a propaganda piece in McNews today (you know it's propaganda: it was written by one Thomas Frank and followed up by a companion post on the TSA blog) stating that they are about to start running explosive test swabs on the hands of passengers AT THE GATE. The explosive trace detectors are sensitive to (among other things) glycerine (used in most hand lotions) and nitrogen compounds (used in household fertilizer).


Another case of a "solution" that causes many more problems.
Click to expand...


Oh boy! dog feces does contain nitrogen......
 
Large cargo of bio-toxins...
 
Clark1961 said:
A short review of a few facts should have tipped the feds and locals that the flight was innocent. No known contacts with drug traffickers. Flight following in and a flight plan out. Published accounts of the aircraft performing dog rescue missions. Of course when the folks doing the deed don't stop and think ("We're only doing or jobs" :nono:), innocent folks get abused.
Click to expand...

how do you know Ted has not had some sort of contact with drug traffickers? If I was running drugs I would fly as "normal" as possible including flight following or flight plans if i thought it was appropriate. Dog rescue missions seem like a great cover for hauling drugs.

Just playing devil's advocate, btw. I don't really think that Ted is running drugs in the Aztec.
 
tonycondon said:
how do you know Ted has not had some sort of contact with drug traffickers? If I was running drugs I would fly as "normal" as possible including flight following or flight plans if i thought it was appropriate. Dog rescue missions seem like a great cover for hauling drugs.

Just playing devil's advocate, btw. I don't really think that Ted is running drugs in the Aztec.
Click to expand...


If so, that's a criminal investigation that can be handled best in PA.

The feds have too broad and too widespread power, period.
 
tonycondon said:
how do you know Ted has not had some sort of contact with drug traffickers? If I was running drugs I would fly as "normal" as possible including flight following or flight plans if i thought it was appropriate. Dog rescue missions seem like a great cover for hauling drugs.

Just playing devil's advocate, btw. I don't really think that Ted is running drugs in the Aztec.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose it is a bit of an assumption on my part...

But thinking of things that way, maybe the guy at the FBO tipped Sheriff Bubba: "Hey Bubba, I jus' got 'nother one o'dim dere druggies in. Yep, a real long haired freak. Sez he's flyin' dawgs but you know thet nobody does thet! 'sides, gas is cheaper in Dalhart so why'd 'e stop here? Yep, came in VFR from Arizona and is in a heckofahurry ta leave! Better git yer butt down here pronto partner."
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
Well, I suppose it is a bit of an assumption on my part...

But thinking of things that way, maybe the guy at the FBO tipped Sheriff Bubba: "Hey Bubba, I jus' got 'nother one o'dim dere druggies in. Yep, a real long haired freak. Sez he's flyin' dawgs but you know thet nobody does thet! Yep, came in VFR from Tucumcari and is a heckofahurry ta leave! Better git yer butt down here pronto partner."
Click to expand...

quite possible and if he'd been right we all would've patted him on his back.
 
tonycondon said:
I don't really think that Ted is running drugs in the Aztec.
Click to expand...
Could have been illegal aliens. He was coming from Arizona after all. :rofl:

I've had customs (on a regular customs stop) ask me to open the unpressurized baggage compartment to make sure there was no one back there. Of course I guess there was no way to know it was unpressurized unless they knew the type of airplane pretty well.
 
This encounter didn't sound too bad... at least they didn't plant anything in your plane. :rolleyes:

Their suspicion does seem reasonable enough... how are they going to do what they're hired to do if they're never suspicious? Of course, you gotta wonder why we need DHS when we already have federal, state and local LEOs to handle that stuff. And for cryin' out loud, if their job is to search aircraft, they should know what a portable O2 system is and how it works. I mean, what the hell? Me, I'd have gotten in trouble, because I would have told them to go do something they're better-suited for, like marking receipts at Home Depot. :D

But they could have saved a lot of time and trouble, if they were looking for signs of drug smuggling or explosives, if they brought a trained dog. One good dog is worth 100 of these knuckleheads. A dog would have known without even entering the aircraft... and he'd have also put in a good word for you, because he'd know immediately you were a great friend of dogs everywhere. :D
 
wsuffa said:
TSA had a propaganda piece in McNews today (you know it's propaganda: it was written by one Thomas Frank and followed up by a companion post on the TSA blog) stating that they are about to start running explosive test swabs on the hands of passengers AT THE GATE. The explosive trace detectors are sensitive to (among other things) glycerine (used in most hand lotions) and nitrogen compounds (used in household fertilizer).

Nothing was stated about how they'll resolve the alarms, but passengers that have experienced this kind of testing at checkpoints have found delays of 30 minutes to two hours as TSA ransacks their bags, tests each item in the bag, and calls a bomb officer from the local PD.

I predict hundreds of people will miss their flights and there will be any number of concourse evacuations.
Click to expand...
Just do what I did when they weren't profiling in 2002...PREBOARD.:D
 
Ron Levy said:
I'd be interested to know if there's something in the Patriot Act which authorizes searches of aircraft owned/piloted by those on the watch list, or any other relevant language in that Act. In any event, in most cases, law enforcement officers generally have the authority to detain a vehicle under suspicion while they go get (or at least try to get) a search warrant. It's not like dealing with an FAA Inspector who wants to ramp check you but has no authority to detain you if you refuse (only to cause you pain and agony later). In addition, before anyone does anything to annoy TSA, see what 14 CFR 61.18 says about what happens if you manage to get yourself elevated from the watch list to the threat list.
Click to expand...

Ron, with all due respect you need to be careful. The information above is generally incorrect. It may be correct in your state (I have no idea) but by no means is it correct for many states and does not apply to federal agents at all.

I can "reasonably" search your vehicle including aircraft without a single piece of paper signed by a judge or anyone else, and I'm not talking about "customs" type issues.

For most people, KISS is a good principle. Either go along to get along, or know just enough to know how and when to say no.
 
Last edited:
rottydaddy said:
Of course, you gotta wonder why we need DHS when we already have federal, state and local LEOs to handle that stuff.
Click to expand...

Many (if not most nowadays) of these "federal LEOs" work for DHS now. While TSA=DHS, DHS=/TSA.

Immigration, customs, border patrol as well as a number of other alphabet and former alphabet agencies are now within the "DHS." Point is, this might have had absolutely, positively nothing to do with TSA, and as Mari posted above, has been going on since way before 9/11, right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
kkoran said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...

Easier to let the SCOTUS do the talking:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/456/798/

While the cases dealing with this subject area are legion, Ross above is a good starting point and references other cases (particularly Carroll v US which is kind of the granddaddy of this chain of precedent) that explain the situation clearly enough.

Point is, when it comes to vehicles - which are highly regulated by the state and are easily movable - searches must be reasonable under the circumstances, and articulatable probable cause must exist, but the judicial review comes AFTER the search, and not before.

BUT, state and local LEO's which are subject to state constitutions, state laws, and state legal precedents might have to operate more conservatively, depending on the legal situation in that state. Alaska is one example.

So if Ted had refused it would have come down to who the agents worked for (are they state or Federal, do they have delegated customs officer powers); what information they possessed (is it probable cause?); and if they are state or local officers what the state legal situation is as to whether they could have searched anyway without a judicial warrant. That is a simplified view of course :mad2:
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Any attorney here wish to comment about a possible civil rights lawsuit?

quote]

Scott I don't think there is much fuel there for a Civil Rights suit. Had they detained Ted that would be a start but then you would have to have some sort of damage. From the way it sounds Ted was't detained and he consented to the search. It is certainly frustrating but I just don't see it.

Ted I am very curious. What exactly did the LEOs tell you when they approached you and What did they say when they asked to search the plane and did you ask they why they wanted to search? If so I'm really curious as to what reason they gave you.
Click to expand...
 
smigaldi said:
I am speechless!!!

The 'fraidy cat sheeple that tolerate this absolute BS from the government is beyond me. What kills me is that it is often the people that demand freedom who, at the same time support the a-holes who pass these laws.

My $.02

See if you can interest a news reporter in the story about overbearing government and their attempts to catch terrorist canines. A bumbling government is usually news.

Talk to the local ACLU. Ya I know a bunch of you guys think they are commies, but they live for this type of stuff and have been fighting the Patriot Act for a long time. They may be interested in this as an example of violation of privacy and the 4th amendment. Next up call the Chief of Staff of your local Congrescriters and complain to them. ASK THEM FOR HELP, you might get lucky and have one that has a chip on his shoulder about the DHS.

Any attorney here wish to comment about a possible civil rights lawsuit?

All of this is work, if you do nothing, then nothing will change. Well at least for the better.
Click to expand...

OK, as the devil's advocate...

How was the Fourth Amendment violated?

How was his right to privacy violated?

What were his damages?

All in the spirit of debate and discussion of course :smile:

None of us likes this BS when it happens to us or our friends. But no one has the right to be free from investigation, that is not codified in the Constitution. I (for one) would rather see programs like this one (if we are indeed talking about a "program" or "initiative") tailored to intercept criminal or suspicious activity based on specific indicators - profiling if you will - rather than broadly applied, bull-in-a-China-shop measures such as the US border crossing requirements, eAPIS, permanent TFR's, SFRA's etc.

BTW I am an actual card-carrying member of the ACLU.
 
Last edited:
From the flightaware logs, it looks like you've been flying a ton, that's awesome.

It is not surprising, but man, is it ever disappointing to see that our govt is wasting time on this kind of policing. I mean, c'mon, if you were really up to something nefarious... would you be filing flight plans ?

This said, I wonder what differentiated you from any other extremely active pilot, check-hauler, or freight-dog. I have never heard of anyone getting stopped by DHS without cause, and certainly you're not the only guy burning up the airways.
 
I refuse to get stressed over fairly predictable shennagians.

I will say that I find it extremely difficult to believe anyone who rescues puppies is a bad person.
 
Ted, I'm sorry that you had to deal with this nonsense...Once again, your government hard at work. If this happened to me, I would make a media case out of it, but I know there are a few good reasons for not doing that...in any case, good luck and fly safe!


tonycondon said:
Liberal, Kansas. A Geographic Oxymoron.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the very same thing...:rolleyes:
 
wsuffa said:
Very, very troubling.

If you are on a watch list, time to engage an attorney to make sure you get off. It really will affect everything in your life since some banks will screen against the DHS lists, as will some lenders. Not to mention commercial flying and attempting to travel in and out of the country.

Welcome to Amerika, folks, where it's OK to detain you on mere suspicion. The Revolutionary War was fought to keep us free from this kind of behavior.

DHS and TSA need to go.
Click to expand...

I did a Bing search for the DHS to find its mission - which of course I couldn't find.

However, the search line said: "Department of Homeland Security | Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting ..." What a crock.
 
weilke said:
Aztec 12-puppy: Gotta go, beat the weather. Send me a bill.
Click to expand...
It would have been interesting to see how the locals reacted to that. Without a warrant I don't think they had the authority to prevent your departure but one has to wonder if that would have stopped them from pressing harder.

My biggest fear with something like this would be that someone would plant some evidence. I'd definitely like to have a video rolling, just in case.
 
wsuffa said:
Welcome to Amerika, folks, where it's OK to detain you on mere suspicion. The Revolutionary War was fought to keep us free from this kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

Actually, your post can be made into a great slogan: "America: Detaining people on mere suspicion since 1776!"

I'm still waiting to hear something either new or unusual about this situation, other than the letters in the agency alphabet name (and the pilot involved ;) )
 
alaskaflyer said:
Actually, your post can be made into a great slogan: "America: Detaining people on mere suspicion since 1776!"
Click to expand...

Actually, you know that is not true. It can't be "mere" suspicion. It must be reasonable suspicion.
 
gismo said:
It would have been interesting to see how the locals reacted to that. Without a warrant I don't think they had the authority to prevent your departure but one has to wonder if that would have stopped them from pressing harder.
Click to expand...

Good question. With the poor training some local law enforcement agencies have, I wouldn't have been suprised if one of their 'heroes' would have rammed the 'suspected drug-smuggler' with his squad car.

More likely, they would have called their handlers at Gestapo headquarters that the 'suspected drugsmuggler' resisted and fled. From that point on, this would have turned into something really heroic with a couple of weekend-warriors with their F16s from three states over trying to intercept the puppy-express.
 
Clark1961 said:
Actually, you know that is not true. It can't be "mere" suspicion. It must be reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to know what the official justification for this stop was. 'Your taillight is out' or 'I saw you swerve over the centerline' don't really apply here.
 
It's worth calling gov't affairs at AOPA too. I know some feel AOPA is worthless, but it couldn't hurt to try and rile them up on something like this.
 
I'm wondering if the federal agency that requested this was DEA and not DHS.

With regard to "refusing" a search, I saw an ACLU video that recommended saying "I do not consent to any searches," but I am not aware of anyone who has recommended attempting to physically prevent them from searching if they decide to do so without your consent.

As for people asking me over the radio to come back after I have already taxied out at an uncontrolled field, no way, Jose. My response would be to simply not answer.
 
AdamZ said:
Oh by the Way Kent you drive those huge Tractor Trailers all over the country how many times have you been delayed and searched by the ABC agency!!:mad3::mad3:
Click to expand...

TSA? Never. DOT? Quite a few times. DHS? Whoo boy - Border crossings are NOT fun sometimes. I've been thrown out of my truck while wearing a T-shirt in Michigan in December, dressed down by one officer while shivering in the cold while another rifled through my belongings in the tractor. No, they did not ask permission. (I think Customs is somehow exempt?)
 
nddons said:
I did a Bing search for the DHS to find its mission - which of course I couldn't find.
Click to expand...
Did you try their homepage?

DHS.gov said:
The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 230,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear – keeping America safe.
Click to expand...
And here is the link to their strategic plan: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/strategicplan/

nddons said:
However, the search line said: "Department of Homeland Security | Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting ..." What a crock.
Click to expand...
I like grape preserves, I wonder if they are any good at preserving them?
 
weilke said:
From that point on, this would have turned into something really heroic with a couple of weekend-warriors with their F16s from three states over trying to intercept the puppy-express.
Click to expand...

Those "weekend warriors" bear the lion's share of this nation's defense.

This wasn't a Military boondoggle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top