Over policed during ramp chk?

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Never, ever give police permission to search. If they already have enough to search without your permission, they will. The majority of searches are done by permission, though, and it can only end badly for you....

This.

Frankly, I can't emphasize what you've written enough.

If you ever give the police permission to search, whatever happens is on you. Period.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

And I'll bet he's on the watch list for commercial travel, too.

He'll need to sue them. That's the only thing they respect.

Sue them for what? Searching when given permission to, and finding an unsecured concealed weapon of which they were not informed, and then perhaps putting his name on a list?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I think it's highly misleading for them to inform you it's a routine ramp check, then ask to search the plane. Folks in flack jackets with automatic weapons aren't authorized to do 'ramp' checks.

My 2 cents. I wouldn't have consented to the search. I would have asked if I was being detained and on what charges. If, not being detained, I would leave. If being detained, I would have asked to call my attorney (if he wasn't with me.) <g>

The more they just do this stuff with no consequence, the more they will continue to ignore that silly little document our fore Father's fought to create and I feel I fought to protect.

Best,

Dave

I agree 100% with the spirit of what you're writing, but permission was given.

In a setting where drug smuggling is known to occur (unless you're sticking your head in the sand), I don't see a problem with: 1) border agents accompanying the FAA (even for the FAA's protection given certain smugglers' traits); and 2) asking for voluntarily-given permission to conduct a search, in a wholly nonconfrontational way.

Like I said, I see exactly where you're coming from, and I too don't like it - but what more can we ask for?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I question I would ask (and your masterful disguising of the details has denied me), is how close was the airport where the search occurred to either Canada or Mexico.

Especially when dealing with CBP, anyplace within 50 miles or so of an international border is a 4th Amendment Free Zone, and consent or no, probable cause or no, they can search what they want, take your plane apart and leave the pieces sitting on the ramp for you to pick up without even needing to say "Sorry for the inconvenience."

This, too. I hesitate to say it's *automatic* like it is if you're going through customs, but yeah - your 4th Amendment rights are definitely cut back when in close proximity to the border.

But, it's also worth remembering that, if you're engaged in international travel, your geographic location doesn't matter - when you pass through customs, you're subject to arbitrary actions that won't fly anywhere else.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

If the FAA guy cant carry a gun or arrest you, he's not a law enforcement officer. FAA court actions are civil, not criminal.

The person referenced by the OP got screwed.

I have a CCL/CHP.. and I carry. I also am allowed to carry without permit in Texas providing I am traveling, and the law has recently been amended to presume that I am traveling until proven otherwise.

Never ever had a problem with local PD with my CCL/CHP.

Keep in mind that we don't know where this happened, so we can't know the law of the place where it happened as regards who might or might not be a LEO.

Nevertheless, it's also worth keeping in mind that whatever offense was committed as regards the weapon will be determined under state law; it could easily be that the particular state extends LEO status - for purposes of the CW law - to any government official.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

They had a barking dog.

Only after consent was given to search, if I understood correctly.

Depending on the state (for instance, Colorado), there has to be either permission or justification to bring out a narcotics dog.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

They could start by closing the border to drug smugglers and illegal aliens. Does it make sense to keep harassing the same pilot when thousands of Mexicans cross the border illegally every day?

Wonderful how we pay the salaries of these jackasses so they can intimidate law abiding citizens.

How do you tell who they are without these kinds of encounters?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...
If you walk away from CBP or an LEO when you are being detained, what law have you violated? (I presume there is one - just want to know what it is.) Do they have to tell you you're being detained in order to require you to remain? Alternatively, can they just grab you and hold you?

If the detention is valid (and usually even if it's invalid) - either a Terry stop or an arrest - you're guilty of some kind of resisting, obstruction, or something along those lines (once you've been given notice that you're not free to leave - and you usually know even without notice).

If it's a "consensual encounter," you can walk away.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Silly me, I thought that a basic legal principal of this country is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Oh wait, it used to be in the past but not today. Now it's "you're guilty until you prove your innocence".

Not when it comes to searches/arrests/etc.

The results of a search neither justify nor negate the cause for the search.

For instance, finding drugs doesn't mean you had cause to conduct a search. At the same time, not finding drugs does not mean that you did not have cause for the search.

In other words, it's not an ends/means question.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

From the above article:

Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security, is permitted to search travelers and their belongings at the American border without probable cause or a warrant.

I emphasize: AT THE BORDER. We are told there was no border crossing in these instances.

Best,

Dave

Just to elaborate, and even though I don't think this is an issue for this particular case, the border isn't confined to the geographical border as we think of it.

Say you're returning to Kansas City from London - when you land and go through customs, that's the "border," for legal purposes.

Just so no one misunderstands.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

You do not need a warrant I don't care if you are US Customs or Mayberry's chief of police. This falls under the vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement as described in Carroll and hundreds of subsequent cases. Years and years ago.

What you need is a pretext to contact the person and then probable cause to search. Probable cause is determined by the officer in the field with the understanding that it will undergo judicial review eventually, one way or another. In the federal system an appropriately conducted dog search with positive indications may be all the PC you need.

So, while you may disagree whether this SHOULD be happening...ain't nobody gonna put the brakes on what is going on in your plane on the ramp except the officers own knowledge of the law and sense of professional self preservation - or a supervisor's.

This is all seperate from the question of consent.

Heck. You don't even need a pretext.

If I'm a cop and I see you, even though I don't have any reason to whatsoever, I can walk over to you and say good morning and ask about the weather. Then I can ask you if you mind if I look in your airplane.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Please be kind enough to inform us of the basis of probable cause in this instance.

Best,

Dave

Hope I'm not coming across as a jerk, but here's the deal.

P.C. isn't going to be an issue here.

There are two questions that are relevant.

First is whether the CBP agents were lawfully present. They were - that's indisputable.

Second is whether they either obtained consent or had PC for the search. Being as they obviously obtained consent, they didn't need PC - thus making PC irrelevant.

BUT, even if consent hadn't been obtained, they might have been able to run the dog around the plane regardless. Once it alerted, presuming the dog is reliable, there's your PC.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

That used to be true, but not anymore.
In Arizona v. Gant (April this year),the Supreme Court severely restricted the warrantless search of vehicles, and basically undoing the Carroll Doctrine.
We had to do a whole bunch of search and seizure training in a big hurry after that case dropped.

....

Arizona v. Gant didn't deal with warrantless searches of vehicles. Carroll and the automobile exception remain fully intact.

Gant dealt with a search of a vehicle "incident to arrest," which is entirely separate from a warrantless search with probable cause.

Summarized, if I arrest you, I can search you "incident to arrest." I can also search the physical location in which you're located, in areas that were reasonable accessible to you at the time of your arrest.

What Gant did was to say that if a motorist is outside of his vehicle when he is arrested, the vehicle cannot automatically be searched incident to arrest (it still can be in certain circumstances, though). That's all it did.

So, say you pull someone over for speeding. In Situation 1, you order the guy out of the car for your safety (let's assume you just have a bad feeling), and have him sit on the trunk while you're running his documents. It turns out he has an active warrant, so you arrest him on the warrant. In this situation, you can't search the car incident to arrest without more.

In Situation 2, however, you pull a guy over for speeding, and smell marijuana and see an obviously illegal sawed-off shotgun in the car. You have probable cause to perform a warrantless search on the spot.

You're in Colorado - there's a series of Colo. Supreme Court cases that came out 2-3 Mondays ago on Gant. Shoot me a PM if you're interested and I'll send them to you. They're actually pretty good in terms of helping to understand Gant.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

My hands are tired now. I'm going home.

Richard, tell me if I wrote anything wrong on criminal procedure.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

P.S.

Something that amuses me about Gant is that it's a case out of Arizona. If any of you have seen How the West Was Won, you'll remember Charlie Gant at the end of the movie, when the family is in AZ. He must've started a whole hive of outlaws out there.

 

[Palmpilot]

Especially when dealing with CBP, anyplace within 50 miles or so of an international border is a 4th Amendment Free Zone, and consent or no, probable cause or no, they can search what they want, take your plane apart and leave the pieces sitting on the ramp for you to pick up without even needing to say "Sorry for the inconvenience."

I wonder if this is covered by insurance. If not, does anyone know if it's possible to buy such insurance?

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

When are you people going to grasp the concept that this is a free country and you must do exactly as your told? I mean, your acting like there is wiggle room or something.

John

I love your Orwellianisms. ;-)

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

So does that mean that law enforcement cannot search to collect evidence?

I just think it's strange that people want it both ways.

No, you just need probable cause, which the cops didn't have in this case. They were just going on a fishing expidition.

 

[alaskaflyer]

No, you just need probable cause, which the cops didn't have in this case. They were just going on a fishing expidition.

How do you know?

By the way someone mentioned the w word again before David went off the deep end today. No warrant required though the option to bullet proof your work in advance does exist. Must be an echo.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

How do you know?

Simple, the cops asked for permission to search. Cops don't ask for permission to search when they have PC. Durrr.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Simple, the cops asked for permission to search. Cops don't ask for permission to search when they have PC. Durrr.

It's always better to ask for consent, whether or not you have PC.

First, it entirely avoids the issue of PC arising later - PC can still be challenged even if you have a warrant, even though it's far more difficult.

Second, if you obtain a "searchee's" consent, the chances of some kind of confrontation go way down. That's important for everyone involved.

So, if you ask me, best practice is to ask for consent when practicable, even if independent PC exists.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

How do you know?

By the way someone mentioned the w word again before David went off the deep end today. No warrant required though the option to bullet proof your work in advance does exist. Must be an echo.

Hehe, I'll do that every now and then - but this is stuff I take pretty seriously, and I think it's important that everyone have an accurate idea of what the law does and does not involve.

That way, if you ever find yourself in this type of situation, maybe you know that you can avoid the whole situation (deny consent), or perhaps you can avoid getting arrested, etc., etc.

And, if you know what the law is and you don't like it, you can advocate for its change.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Simple, the cops asked for permission to search. Cops don't ask for permission to search when they have PC. Durrr.

Sure I do. Why wouldn't I?

 

[LT4247]

As a retired LEO with years in narcotics investigations I can assure all that this post is a fact and good advice..

Here is part 1 of a multi-part series called "Don't Talk to Cops"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

which I watched in full about a year ago. It was a real eye-opener for me. The "I didn't have anything to hide" defenses is useless when an overly zealous group of supposed law enforcers has a woodie to put you in a bind.

The key is to know the law, know your rights, and stand your ground. Never, ever volunteer for a search because nothing good can come from it. Never, ever volunteer information either. You start even and go downhill from there.

I have the utmost respect for legitimate enforcement officers but I will never voluntarily put myself in a position of defending myself. Remember, by law they are allowed to lie to you and trick you into subjugating yourself. Everything you say can be used against you while everything they say is inadmissable.

I would have presented my aircraft and pilot's papers to the FAA, as required, and refused any further exploration of the aircraft. No logs would be presented, either on the aircraft or on the pilot.

As someone said earlier, if they are truly targeting you because of a legitimate suspicion, they will already have the necessary paperwork in advance to forcibly search your aircraft or vehicle.

 

[Dr. O]

I do not consent to ANY search by ANYONE, including the so called 'ramp check'... Saying yes will not help you under any circumstances...

They have attempted to ramp me on three separate instances over the years... Each time I have said no and told them to mail me an official letter outlining what it is they need to inspect and that I will have my attorney give them an answer - I never received any letter... They do not like the magic word 'attorney'... They get nervous... They suddenly remember, with a shiver, that they are not really in charge of the world...

denny-o

 

[weilke]

I do not consent to ANY search by ANYONE, including the so called 'ramp check'... Saying yes will not help you under any circumstances...

A regular FAA ramp check does not include a 'search' (handing the official your medical and registration doesn't qualify as such).

 

[gismo]

Hehe, I'll do that every now and then - but this is stuff I take pretty seriously, and I think it's important that everyone have an accurate idea of what the law does and does not involve.

That way, if you ever find yourself in this type of situation, maybe you know that you can avoid the whole situation (deny consent), or perhaps you can avoid getting arrested, etc., etc.

And, if you know what the law is and you don't like it, you can advocate for its change.

I, for one, truly appreciate both the content and tone of your posts on this thread.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I, for one, truly appreciate both the content and tone of your posts on this thread.

Thanks!

 

[etsisk]

They cannot search without a warrant or your permission. End of story.

That's pretty funny! It's not remotely true, but it's pretty funny, what with the way you said "End of story." and all!

If they have on-scene probable cause to search, they can search you up one side and down the other and standing there, there's nothing you can do about it. Refusing a voluntary search (which is the way to go, in my IMHO) only makes it incumbent upon them to actually HAVE pc for the search. But if they do, it's Katie bar the door, son - they're coming in.

 

[etsisk]

Simple, the cops asked for permission to search. Cops don't ask for permission to search when they have PC. Durrr.

Well, THAT certainly isn't true! Even if I had pc to search, I would always try and get permission to search; that way I would short-circuit at least one avenue of escape for the suspect during the pc hearing that was to come...