Visit from CBP at my hangar

comanchepilot said:
and 99.9999% of people are too polite and too risk averse and too resistant to conflict to disagree . . .. guess I'm not one of them.

The funny thing is that cops see it as soon as they look in your eyes - thus - why I rarely have a problem. Polite Persistant Knowledgeable.

Thats all you need to be.
Click to expand...

Unless "constitution don't apply at a road block."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

And everybody saying they can just call the dog. And the dog being well trained will indicate and only the handler gets to make the call that it did.
 
Last edited:
Luvrv8 said:
Was the hangar inspection legal being that the CFI was not the owner of it? How can a non owner or renter give permission for a inspection to a agent?
Click to expand...

The CFI had permission to gain entry to the hangar. He gave consent.

Its chicken-s#it.... but its legal... at least thats what my non-lawyering news-reading self has discerned...
 
mikea said:
Unless "constitution don't apply at a road block."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

And everybody saying they can just call the dog. And the dog being well trained will indicate and only the handler gets to make the call that it did.
Click to expand...


And the dog was VERY good at scratching the paint on that car... Makes ya wonder if it was trained to do that...:dunno:........:yes:.....:mad2:
 
Doggtyred said:
The CFI had permission to gain entry to the hangar. He gave consent.

Its chicken-s#it.... but its legal... at least thats what my non-lawyering news-reading self has discerned...
Click to expand...


So, can the kid you hire to mow your lawn give consent to search your house when you're not home?
 
I'm curious about how often these stops have uncovered something illegal/prosecutable. That question is separate from the need to demand that police follow OUR rules. Yeah, it's much easier to keep crime down if the police can act in an unrestrained way (police states often have low crime rates--outside of the leadership which has impunity).

Are we just hearing about rare innocents caught up in highly effective interdiction efforts. Or is it a case of for every 100 people being harassed, only 1 or 2 are guilty?
 
mikea said:
Unless "constitution don't apply at a road block."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

And everybody saying they can just call the dog. And the dog being well trained will indicate and only the handler gets to make the call that it did.
Click to expand...

Without even mentioning the other factors in this video, the officers violated this guys rights because the US Supreme Court ruled almost 25 years ago (Indianapolis vs Edmond) that drug sniffing dogs are NOT allowed to be used at DUI checkpoints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond

The fact that he has that all caught on camera so blatantly = a big civil rights settlement check if he choses to pursue it.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Without even mentioning the other factors in this video, the officers violated this guys rights because the US Supreme Court ruled almost 25 years ago (Indianapolis vs Edmond) that drug sniffing dogs are NOT allowed to be used at DUI checkpoints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond

The fact that he has that all caught on camera so blatantly = a big civil rights settlement check if he choses to pursue it.
Click to expand...

This happened a couple of years ago IIRC,,, The kid is probably a multi millionaire by now...:thumbsup:
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Without even mentioning the other factors in this video, the officers violated this guys rights because the US Supreme Court ruled almost 25 years ago (Indianapolis vs Edmond) that drug sniffing dogs are NOT allowed to be used at DUI checkpoints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond

The fact that he has that all caught on camera so blatantly = a big civil rights settlement check if he choses to pursue it.
Click to expand...

From what I've been told by a state trooper friend is that he HAD to follow the requests. Basically, at the point the officer requested him to pull over car he lost his rights to say no.

All he had to do was play nice. Just roll the window down and politely answer the questions asked.
 
ARFlyer said:
From what I've been told by a state trooper friend is that he HAD to follow the requests. Basically, at the point the officer requested him to pull over car he lost his rights to say no.

All he had to do was play nice. Just roll the window down and politely answer the questions asked.
Click to expand...

I ain't buyin it................:no:...:nono:

If it was a legit stop... Why did the cops FREAK OUT when they saw the camera..:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:......:mad2::mad:.
 
N801BH said:
I ain't buyin it................:no:...:nono:

If it was a legit stop... Why did the cops FREAK OUT when they saw the camera..:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:......:mad2::mad:.
Click to expand...

I bet because he no longer could intimidate the kid. The kid kinda asked for it when he told the officer what his rights were.

Now here is a video of a local Game Officer taking it a bit to far....

http://www.youtube.com/uVUJTH8i5C0
 
Matt Taibbi in his current book: The crooks who stole $billions don't even get charged. He went to circuit court and asked the lawyers what was the most asinine case that day. Kid got 6 months in Rikers for possession of a single joint.

Turns out that New York law says that that a person cannot be arrested for having a single joint if it's concealed and not openly displayed. So NYC cops do stop and frisk of anybody and everybody. Make them empty their pockets. At which point the concealed joint is displayed. Rikers.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
So, can the kid you hire to mow your lawn give consent to search your house when you're not home?
Click to expand...

you missed the first line about he had permission to enter the hangar . . .

Did he exercise poor judgment in granting consent AFTER he closed it out and was pulling away - sure. But can't fault him. Whether he actually had legal authority to consent after he took the plane out and closed the hangar is questionable but they found no contraband so no motions will be filed . . .

Just about 2 months ago the Supreme Court ruled that an OCCUPANT of a premises may consent to the search of the premises - even if the police KNOW that the owner refuses consent and objects . . . this is completely relevant to this case. . . . one with apparent authority granted consent to search this hangar - there is no 4th amendment violation - see:

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/25/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226

and the actual case:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-7822_he4l.pdf
 
N801BH said:
I agree with EVERYTHING you post and congrats on trying to keep big brother in check........

Can you define " apparent authority":dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...

Wow, even my wife doesn't agree with me on everything!

apparent authority is completely fact and circumstances dependent - but in this case the CFI pulls the airplane out of the hangar, and closes it back up - he has apparent authority to be in the hangar . . . he has the airplane. He has consent from the owner to have the airplane and is about to fly it.

I presume they watched all that or developed those facts during the conversation with him . . .
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
Wow, even my wife doesn't agree with me on everything!

apparent authority is completely fact and circumstances dependent - but in this case the CFI pulls the airplane out of the hangar, and closes it back up - he has apparent authority to be in the hangar . . . he has the airplane. He has consent from the owner to have the airplane and is about to fly it.

I presume they watched all that or developed those facts during the conversation with him . . .
Click to expand...


Let me retract that statement to.... " Almost" everything you say...;)
 
Driving with good posture, with hands at the classic ten and two position on the wheel, is sufficient reason to pull over a driver with a bad complexion, according to a ruling handed down Thursday...

... It was 7:45pm, a time the Border Patrol agent found suspicious. The truck had an Arizona plate on the back and tinted windows, but its driver, Cindy Lee Westhoven, violated no traffic laws. Instead, Agent Semmerling noted she had "stiff posture" and hands "at a ten-and-two position on the steering wheel" so he decided to do a U-turn and pursue.

A registration check showed the truck was registered to a Lawrence Westhoven in Tucson, which suggested to the officer that Westhoven was either smuggling illegal aliens or drugs. He hit his emergency lights and forced her to pull over. Agent Semmerling testified that he believed Westhoven must have been a methamphetamine addict after he noticed she had acne.

Westhoven was ordered out of the truck so a drug dog could sniff it. She was told she was not under arrest but that she was being detained. Twenty minutes into the stop the drug dog arrived and alerted, revealing marijuana. Westoven's lawyer pointed out that the federal agent's story sounded fishy.

"Agent Semmerling contends that he noticed in passing the vehicle that it had an Arizona license plate," attorney Bernadette Sedillo told the district court. "The F-150 does not have a front license plate so Agent Semmerling would have had to observe the rear license plate in the rear view mirror traveling the speed limit of 60 miles per hour."

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/43/4394.asp
Click to expand...

And a local judge was shocked, SHOCKED that DEA and local cops could testify the same untrue way on how an arrest went down.

They had said Joseph Sperling was arrested after officers who pulled him over in a traffic stop smelled marijuana, searched the vehicle and found nearly a pound in a backpack lying on the back seat of his car. But the Glenview police video showed the search occurred only after Sperling was taken from his car, frisked and handcuffed, reports the Chicago Tribune (sub. req.). The newspaper dubbed it "a 'Perry Mason' moment rarely seen inside an actual courtroom."

Castigating the officers for their "outrageous conduct," Cook County Circuit Judge Catherine Haberkorn granted a defense motion to suppress the search, which eliminated a basis for his arrest and resulted in a swift dismissal by prosecutors of the felony drug case against the 23-year-old.


http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...l_wins_acquittal_for_defendant_desk_duty_for/
Click to expand...

If it was in Chicago the video would have been lost, accidentally erased, non-existent, "There was fire! An Earthquake! A terrible flood! We don't have it, we swear!"
 
mikea said:
July 2013.
Click to expand...


Well heck... He has probably already cashed the 8 figure settlement check.... and all the cops involved have been given early retirement at full pay...

Is this a great country or what....:yes:..................:mad2:
 
The saddest part of the Chicago lying in court event? The officers got 'desk duty.'
 
mikea said:
You can be sure all of the organizations involved learned a lesson: Never let the video survive.
Click to expand...

This isn't 1980's video technology anymore bud:)

Hidden camera in a pen: http://www.gadgetsandgear.com/spy-pen-cameras.html

In a baseball cap: http://www.gadgetsandgear.com/baseball-cap-hidden-camera.html

In a wrist watch: http://www.gadgetsandgear.com/hidden-spy-camera-watch.html

Even on a key chain: http://www.gadgetsandgear.com/key-chain-dvr-hidden-camera.html

Even if such suspect records video in plain view and the officers confiscate it, one can easily stream it to a secure server where it will be stored and later viewed by a civil rights attorney, just before said suspect and attorney get a hefty settlement check for obstruction of justice!!
 
beestforwardspeed said:
This isn't 1980's video technology anymore bud:)

Hidden camera, just before said suspect and attorney get a hefty settlement check for obstruction of justice!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking it would be nice to have an always on camera badge. Like a personal version of the car dashcam.

This was the video camera from the Glenview Police car.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
This isn't 1980's video technology anymore bud:)

Even if such suspect records video in plain view and the officers confiscate it, one can easily stream it to a secure server where it will be stored and later viewed by a civil rights attorney, just before said suspect and attorney get a hefty settlement check for obstruction of justice!!
Click to expand...

Now you know why Rialto, CA requires officer to wear cameras whenever on duty.

And for completely unrelated reasons, use of force incidents have been cut in half and allegations of police misconduct have dropped by 80%.:D
 
Palmpilot said:
Looks like a good document, but I'm worried about the "should" in "Should not damage personal property during an inspection."
Click to expand...


That "should not" ought to be changed by lawmakers into a "must not". You do damage to the aircraft, you're liable.
 
denverpilot said:
That "should not" ought to be changed by lawmakers into a "must not". You do damage to the aircraft, you're liable.
Click to expand...
Drug runners would just invest in rivet guns and hide drugs behind structural panels. What about the children?:D
 
denverpilot said:
Fine. You can tear up the aircraft but you must put it back to airworthy status when finished.
Click to expand...

Agree, but then you have to wait how long for the PD's A&P? I would say they have to pay for a qualified A&P to do the job. That would be an A&P of the pilot's or owner's choice, not the PD's A&P.

-Skip
 
denverpilot said:
Fine. You can tear up the aircraft but you must put it back to airworthy status when finished.
Click to expand...
Now you are boned. "Sir you can let us search or we will start drilling rivets..."
We are too far down the rabbit hole, sit poolside and enjoy the decline.
 
Skip Miller said:
Agree, but then you have to wait how long for the PD's A&P? I would say they have to pay for a qualified A&P to do the job. That would be an A&P of the pilot's or owner's choice, not the PD's A&P.



-Skip
Click to expand...


Oh you mean government services aren't just the best possible job done at the best possible price? Surely you jest! LOL
 
denverpilot said:
Oh you mean government services aren't just the best possible job done at the best possible price? Surely you jest! LOL
Click to expand...

Neither the private sector not the public sector is perfect.

On the other hand, at least the private sector doesn't usually come at you with guns to force you to use their services.
 
Palmpilot said:
Neither the private sector not the public sector is perfect.

On the other hand, at least the private sector doesn't usually come at you with guns to force you to use their services.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:... Well said...

Congrats.. you are back on my Christmas card list..:rolleyes:
 
warthog1984 said:
Now you know why Rialto, CA requires officer to wear cameras whenever on duty.

And for completely unrelated reasons, use of force incidents have been cut in half and allegations of police misconduct have dropped by 80%.:D
Click to expand...

that's just 'coincidence.'
 
comanchepilot said:
that's just 'coincidence.'
Click to expand...

correlation.png


With apologies to xkcd...
 
JGoodish said:
That's a rather sensationalistic (and unrealistic) statement, at least for general application in the United States. At most you'd find yourself in a cell somewhere, even if you decided to physically attack, unless your actions were deemed life-threatening to law enforcement.


JKG
Click to expand...
Cops shoot unarmed, non threatening people all of the time. Read the papers. I worry about cops more than the thugs, I know what I have with the thugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top