I'm on the Homeland Security Watch List!

alaskaflyer said:
OK, as the devil's advocate...

How was the Fourth Amendment violated?.
Click to expand...
It wasn't since he consented to the search. Perhaps the touchy issue would be the lie used to bring him back to the FBO but that is sketchy at best.

alaskaflyer said:
How was his right to privacy violated?

What were his damages?.
Click to expand...
Nothing more that the extra av gas burned

...[/quote]

bbchien said:
Ted, this is what your Congressman is for. Really. Use him.
Click to expand...

Bruce is correct,this is probably the most effective way of dealing with this

flyersfan31 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excellent Suggestion. I can see them putting this in their weekly epilot or in the magazine as an article. More importantly it allows them to document what is actually going on so that when they do go to the hill they can give numerous specific examples. Your congressman and AOPA is the double prong defense here. Good suggestions.
 
HopelesslyConfusedBureaucracy said:
This Department of Homeland Security’s overriding and urgent mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms."
Click to expand...

Guess they have sorta forgotten that last part...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
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?)
Click to expand...

CBP will be the first to tell you that your constitutional rights don't apply at the border. And I believe that they have some court cases to back that up. That is why they can demand to search your personal electronic devices, read any documnets you have, and confiscate your computer without due process or a warrant.

I've traveled extensively internationally and I consistently find that the US CBP folks are the very worst of the bunch (rude, bad attitude, authoritarian). There is no reason for them to treat US citizens (or our guests) that way.
 
Ted, ya did good... You handled the interruption of your Constitutionally guaranteed right of passage through public spaces just fine...
What I would recommend that you do is write this incident up as an interesting story - puppy rescue pilot being watched/detained by government spooks - and see if you can get one of the liberal rags to print it - New York Times, news magazines, etc... If you cannot get a nibble there, then consider Flying, Sport Aviation, etc...
The point being, that these agencies don't like the white hot glare of publicity... Getting the media to cast a glance their way will do far more to dampen their enthusiasm for future random stop and search of airplanes piloted by U.S. citizens, than any threats of legal actions (useless)...

And as far as the fellas muttering darkly about no one will search your plane without a warrant - as an old police surgeon and emr doc let me assure you from experience that obstructing a LEO when he is determined to search, is a front row seat to being slammed face down on the tarmac with an AR-15 or M4 barrel grinding into your ear...

denny-o
 
wsuffa said:
I've traveled extensively internationally and I consistently find that the US CBP folks are the very worst of the bunch (rude, bad attitude, authoritarian). There is no reason for them to treat US citizens (or our guests) that way.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say they are the worst but they certainly do their best to maintain the trade deficit.
 
This is harrassment pure and simple. I'd be calling EVERYBODY. Politicians, AOPA, EAA, your Aunt Tilley.....
 
Anthony said:
This is harrassment pure and simple. I'd be calling EVERYBODY. Politicians, AOPA, EAA, your Aunt Tilley.....
Click to expand...

do you consider the searches done that resulted in drug busts as harrassment?
 
What you should have done:

FBO: There's a problem with your credit card.
Ted: I'll be stopped at KXYZ, have DHS meet me there. I'm not coming back to appease them.
FBO: Ummm.....ok
 
tonycondon said:
do you consider the searches done that resulted in drug busts as harrassment?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, yes. It depends on the circumstances. I have a hard time reconciling that Ted was doing anything that would appear to be suspicious just because he flies a lot.

If I were rich, I'd fly a lot too. (not saying Ted's rich, just saying if I were...)
 
dmccormack said:
And the probable cause in this cause is/was...?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And that's why I won't consent to a search. Ever. We still have judges, let the Stasi explain to the judge why he/she should issue a search warrant.


Trapper John
 
tonycondon said:
do you consider the searches done that resulted in drug busts as harrassment?
Click to expand...


Yes. If they don't have probable cause. Ask Dr. Bruce about his experience.

They put you on a watch list because you fly a lot. WTF is that? Do they put automobile drivers on a watch list because they drive a lot?
 
tonycondon said:
i have no idea. i'm not an investigator with the KBI.
Click to expand...


The fourth amendment to the Constitution is meant to protect us from "unreasonable search and seizure."

[SIZE=+1]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [/SIZE]
Click to expand...

There has been a steady erosion as the definition of "reasonable" has shifted in favor of authority.

Can you imagine George Washington or Patrick Henry being subjected to the same setup Ted was in this instance?

We know what the Founders meant when they used the term "unreasonable." We have simply assented to all this nonsense in the name of "security."
 
dmccormack said:
The fourth amendment to the Constitution is meant to protect us from "unreasonable search and seizure."



There has been a steady erosion as the definition of "reasonable" has shifted in favor of authority.

Can you imagine George Washington or Patrick Henry being subjected to the same setup Ted was in this instance?

We know what the Founders meant when they used the term "unreasonable." We have simply assented to all this nonsense in the name of "security."
Click to expand...
I agree completely.

That is why I wonder what was the pretense that the DHS used to ask if they could conduct a search. Having a person return to the airport is in and of itself a possible 4th amendment issue if they did not have PC. Ted should consider billing the agency for the extra fuel that he had to expend along with any other expenses such as time. They will of course reject this and then perhaps he can start to claim the damages in court. The idea may not be to win that lawsuit but to highlight the idiocy of such searches.
 
Ok prom a practial standpoint. What happens if anyone of us gets stopped, and we politely refuse to authorize our vehicle to be searched? What is the average LEO going to do? I am specifically exclusing border checks since there is case law excluding them from the 4th amendment as I understand it.
 
vontresc said:
Ok prom a practial standpoint. What happens if anyone of us gets stopped, and we politely refuse to authorize our vehicle to be searched? What is the average LEO going to do? I am specifically exclusing border checks since there is case law excluding them from the 4th amendment as I understand it.
Click to expand...
If they have PC or think they have PC they can search anyway. If they find something and press charges you may still have a legal challenge on if in fact they really did have PC. If they find nothing you lost a lot of time and could file a complaint, request damages, etc.
 
vontresc said:
Ok prom a practial standpoint. What happens if anyone of us gets stopped, and we politely refuse to authorize our vehicle to be searched? What is the average LEO going to do? I am specifically exclusing border checks since there is case law excluding them from the 4th amendment as I understand it.
Click to expand...

If they think they have probable cause, they're not going to ask, they're just going to go ahead and do it.

If they ask you to consent to a search, it means they know they don't have probable cause, and they want you to be a sucker and consent.


Trapper John
 
vontresc said:
Ok prom a practial standpoint. What happens if anyone of us gets stopped, and we politely refuse to authorize our vehicle to be searched? What is the average LEO going to do?
Click to expand...

Depends on how well trained he is and how good a fit for the police profession his personality is. The poorly trained and insecure ones will try to intimidate you with the 'you are interfering with my investigation' bit. The well trained and confident ones will make a decision whether they want to pursue this fishing expedition or let it go. Often they will call for a canine unit. By signal of his handler, the dog will 'alert' to something which will give them probable cause to search your vehicle without your consent.
 
weilke said:
Often they will call for a canine unit. By signal of his handler, the dog will 'alert' to something which will give them probable cause to search your vehicle without your consent.
Click to expand...

Wow. Never considered that scenario. I can totally see how that can happen.
 
wsuffa said:
I've traveled extensively internationally and I consistently find that the US CBP folks are the very worst of the bunch (rude, bad attitude, authoritarian). There is no reason for them to treat US citizens (or our guests) that way.
Click to expand...

Not to stop this authority bashing (which I'm quite fond of doing myself), but I've had consistently good experiences with the CBP folks at SEA. Must be something in the water in this corner of the country. :D
 
Ghery said:
Not to stop this authority bashing (which I'm quite fond of doing myself), but I've had consistently good experiences with the CBP folks at SEA. Must be something in the water in this corner of the country. :D
Click to expand...

I've not cleared at SEA, last time I returned through SEA was from Canada (with preclearance). I can tell you that I prefer to clear at JFK as opposed to IAD, ATL, DTW, or CVG.
 
AdamZ said:
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...

They wanted to search the plane for anything illegal, specifically looking for narcotics. They explained there had been several drug busts at the airport. I didn't ask for much additional explanation, as I could see where the suspicion came from.

I'll be contacting my Congressman and AOPA, good suggestions. I'm not sure about the media beyond AOPA, but I'll think about it.
 
I used America's failed war on drugs as a metaphor for overloading signal transduction systems during embryonic development. Pretty funny, actually.
 
Palmpilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ted: Richard makes an excellent point. Uncontrolled field, at night, no one around wouldn't be high on my list to go back unless I was sure what was going on. Once you stop and are out of that plane alone, bad things could happen. Nothing to gain from what you've said.

Best,

Dave
 
AdamZ said:
Bruce is correct,this is probably the most effective way of dealing with this



Excellent Suggestion. I can see them putting this in their weekly epilot or in the magazine as an article. More importantly it allows them to document what is actually going on so that when they do go to the hill they can give numerous specific examples. Your congressman and AOPA is the double prong defense here. Good suggestions.
Click to expand...

I tried that when Customs gave me a real going over coming back from Merida after getting my niece after hurricane Francis went through. They pretty much took Custom's side before I even explained what had occurred. I didn't get the sharpest knife in the drawer when I called.

Best,

Dave
 
I respect the authorities and know what a difficult job they have. There are some bad folks out there and they see 'em all the time. If they handled themselves reasonably and gave a reasonable explanation, I would probably consent. But, be careful about your personal safety and the safety of any passengers. I have to say, we have some uncontrolled fields in our area with drug activity, and I understand LEOs trying to stop that activity. I guess that's why I'm usually particular about going to a reputable FBO at night or in an area that could be isolated: especially when my three nieces are along. While fuel may be cheaper other places and I have personal protection at times, why open the door to what could be a confrontation (even if between well meaning folks).

Best,

Dave
 
Good points, and food for thought going into the experience bucket.

Normally I try to go into towered fields with larger FBOs at night when going through unfamiliar areas and take the fuel hit. Doubly so on the towered field if it's a bad weather day. On the LA to NYC trip I stopped at KSUS instead of one of the smaller fields that had cheaper fuel, and went to a larger FBO that I knew would be open. If I know where I am it's one thing, but I agree there are a number of small airports I wouldn't want to go to alone at night.

Unfortunately in this case, I was going through a large area of the middle of nowhere where I hadn't seen a towered field anywhere en route that wouldn't have meant a significant detour. One of the reasons I chose Liberal was that they did have an FBO that was going to be open (I called ahead to make sure) rather than stopping at some self serve, middle of nowhere airport. I suppose it goes to show that even when you take precautions, it doesn't always work out as intended.

Good discussion, lots of information for the experience bucket.
 
You: "I do not consent to a search."
LEO 1: "OK, fine. Hey, Larry, do you see that bag on the floor? What's that look like to you?"
LEO 2: "Dunno, didn't notice it before he refused consent. That looks like a probable bag of cocaine."
LEO 1: "Yeah, I think it does too. Sir, lie face down on the pavement. We are going to search your airplane based on our reasonable suspicion that that bag in there contains drugs."
You: "That's a gym bag filled with dirty laundry."
LEO 1: "That's what they all say."
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Ted: Richard makes an excellent point. Uncontrolled field, at night, no one around wouldn't be high on my list to go back unless I was sure what was going on. Once you stop and are out of that plane alone, bad things could happen. Nothing to gain from what you've said.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

I thought that as well when I first read Ted's story. Bad guys threaten the FBO guy to bring back the nice twin to steal it - or worse. It's not like FBOs are well staffed in the evenings.
 
Last edited:
Dr. O said:
Ted, ya did good... You handled the interruption of your Constitutionally guaranteed right of passage through public spaces just fine...
Click to expand...

So you believe that his rights were violated at least for a short while?

Dr. O said:
What I would recommend that you do is write this incident up as an interesting story - puppy rescue pilot being watched/detained by government spooks - and see if you can get one of the liberal rags to print it - New York Times, news magazines, etc... If you cannot get a nibble there, then consider Flying, Sport Aviation, etc...
The point being, that these agencies don't like the white hot glare of publicity... Getting the media to cast a glance their way will do far more to dampen their enthusiasm for future random stop and search of airplanes piloted by U.S. citizens, than any threats of legal actions (useless)...
Click to expand...

Very good suggestion and I agree in this instance

Dr. O said:
And as far as the fellas muttering darkly about no one will search your plane without a warrant - as an old police surgeon and emr doc let me assure you from experience that obstructing a LEO when he is determined to search, is a front row seat to being slammed face down on the tarmac with an AR-15 or M4 barrel grinding into your ear...

denny-o
Click to expand...

I really have to take issue here. I don't think anyone suggested or "muttered darkly" ( I do like that term though I think I'll use it) that folks won't search your plane with out a warrant or that Ted should have obstructed a search. What I think was suggested was that Ted could have told them they didn't have permission to search. Had they just started rifling though his plane he abslouly should not have physcially tried to prevent them from doing so. He could tell them frimly but politely that they do not have his permission to search the plane and he could have gotten the FBO manager or line guy to stand next to him while he said it more than once. If they planted his big Schnoz in the asphault for that then we are all doomed.

Secondly I don't think anyone said they won't search your plane without a warrant. They are going to do anything they damn well please and you will just have to deal with it later. I tell clients if the police want to arrest you even if its a BS reason let them arrest you DO NOT resisit as you have no right to do so and your going to end up with what was referred to in the Philly PD as a nickle ride.

For what its worth These LEOs that showed up were obviously local guys who could give a crap about Ted and his flights or searching his plane. They were probably just told by some schmoe in some office somewhere to do the damn search and they just wanted to get it overwith so they could get back to their heated police crusiers.
 
Anthony said:
Yes. If they don't have probable cause. Ask Dr. Bruce about his experience.

They put you on a watch list because you fly a lot. WTF is that? Do they put automobile drivers on a watch list because they drive a lot?
Click to expand...

Oh yea I'm watching you Anthony all those strange trips up and down the east coast are you smuggleling nutmeg in from Connecuticuit and cheese steaks back from Philly. Your a spice and cholesetrol runner thats what you are!!:D
 
Guys also keep in mind that Teds search is VERY different that the average car stop search. It would be tough for the LEOs to show that Ted did anything to be legally detained or serched. There is no speeding, crossing the yellow line, swerving etc.
 
AdamZ said:
Guys also keep in mind that Teds search is VERY different that the average car stop search. It would be tough for the LEOs to show that Ted did anything to be legally detained or serched. There is no speeding, crossing the yellow line, swerving etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they don't need that...

"Sir, I pulled you over because your license plate is obscured..."
 
Trapper John said:
If they think they have probable cause, they're not going to ask, they're just going to go ahead and do it.

If they ask you to consent to a search, it means they know they don't have probable cause, and they want you to be a sucker and consent.
Click to expand...

And if they ask, and you decline, they'll think you're hiding something you don't want them to find, and then they think they have probable cause. :mad2:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top