Visit from CBP at my hangar

Dav8or said:
Clearly what is needed is an ap and a website. If it could be worked out so that in a detention like this one, you could get out your phone, start recording and have it stream live to the web, you could at least get your statement of non consent and maybe a few other details permanently recorded out of the reach of the LEOs. Even if the LEO confiscates your phone, you could perhaps get the basics out there. Particularly if there is more than one of you.

I suppose that if this became common, the first thing a LEO would do is pat you down and take your phone.
Click to expand...

There are apps that do this. here is one.
 
article-2610336-1D4452EE00000578-742_636x382.jpg
 
teejayevans said:
And if the kid went missing, you would be held responsible for the diversion, plus civil penalties, yea, that's a good strategy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Anything for the children right? Shopkeepers locking people up, hey no problem it is for the children. The negligent mom that let the kid disappear? Well, society does not hold women responsible for their actions, so we need to detain all the men within a block or two. Just in case for the children. Go on live scared, do what you are told, you don't deserve free will. BTW Greater then 99% of child abductions are done by the estranged parent, people's crap life decisions are not my problem and I refuse to be inconvenienced by them.
 
So the children are expendable as long as you are not inconvenienced.
 
tmyers said:
So the children are expendable as long as you are not inconvenienced.
Click to expand...
I think you might be be a child molester please report to your local police station. For the children of course, just a few questions and you will be on your way.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Anything for the children right? Shopkeepers locking people up, hey no problem it is for the children. The negligent mom that let the kid disappear? Well, society does not hold women responsible for their actions, so we need to detain all the men within a block or two. Just in case for the children. Go on live scared, do what you are told, you don't deserve free will. BTW Greater then 99% of child abductions are done by the estranged parent, people's crap life decisions are not my problem and I refuse to be inconvenienced by them.
Click to expand...


That's the difference between me and you, I would ask what the kid looked like, and start helping to search for the kid.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Alright guys......

Can we PLEASE get this once useful thread back on track!!!
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Alright guys......

Can we PLEASE get this once useful thread back on track!!!
Click to expand...

OK, I'll say this, I HOPE I tell any LEO asking to search my plane or car that I do not consent. It's a lot easier here typing on my iPad. ;)
 
warthog1984 said:
I suspect that when they are surrounded by guys in body armor pointing M-16s at them, many folks "consent" to a search in an attempt to minimize the inconvenience of being shot.
Click to expand...

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
 
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...

You apparently don't watch the news much.....or go on the internet.
 
tmyers said:
So the children are expendable as long as you are not inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

That isn't the point. Parents are solely responsible for their minor children.

While I have minor children of my own and understand how easily they can disappear from sight, and I would appreciate a merchant's concern and assistance, that does not (and should not) provide a merchant with any legal standing to prevent the exit of other shoppers. Not to mention that it would seem to be a fairly poor business practice, although that's just one of the many things that this particular Sam's Clu... Er, merchant has done over the years to get under my skin.


JKG
 
I don't see where I said that it was good or bad. I just wanted to see if I understood the post.
 
mcmanigle said:
There are apps that do this. here is one.
Click to expand...

That's pretty cool. Just what I was thinking about. If it weren't for the monthly fee, I would buy the ap and download it. I'm not that worried about the CBP with the kind of flying I do... yet. For those that regularly cross the boarder, I would really suggest checking out this product and the link above. It could really help you in a lawsuit, the AOPA and a lawsuit, go crazy viral on YouTube, or just get some sort of payment.
 
tmyers said:
Reading the Mooney stop I can't help but notice that the CBP guy had an armed Local LEO there watching what is going on. IS this because the CBP guy doesn't have authority or is the LEO there for the CBP guys protection? The good thing is that he is a witness to all that happens if he is honest. I think if I were in the pilots shoes I would ask someone from the FBO to be on hand as my witness to the events as they unfold. A phone video is great but I am sure you would have many objections to that happening. A lot of these guys do undercover work and would not want their faces on a video or still photo.

I think the minute the dog climbed on the wing I would have been in handcuffs. That is just plain stupid IMHO. What gives them the right to damage property.

If they brought out the screw drivers to start removing panels I think I would have to ask to see their A&P certificate, or tell them they needed to be paying an A&P to do that for them, and also remind them that the aircraft needed to be in the same condition at the end of the insanity that it was at the beginning.

It would not be good if this happened to me as I tend to wear my feelings on my face and there would be no hiding that I was fighting mad at the invasion and injustice of how it was being handled.
Click to expand...



As a generalization you don't need FAA mechanic or pilot certification to dissemble or remove a part, just to return something to service after it's reassembled.
 
That is correct but as I read it the aircraft was left in an un-air worthy condition. As an owner and pilot I would expect them to return my aircraft to an air worthy condition. Is there a reason this shouldn't be expected?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
They can and do leave aircraft unairworthy after an inspection and there is nothing you can do about it.
 
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I should really stop reading this thread. The more I think about how one group of people think they are above reproach to the point of damaging another's property with no accountability for their actions the higher my blood pressure rises.

It is a simple lack of basic decency and fairness.
 
Last edited:
I understand they can rip a car to shreds without repercussion, I'd imagine an airplane would be the same. Only less sympathy from the courts and public. Thank god for safety.:rolleyes:
 
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...

Without going into SZ, are you saying that you believe:

1) Police/TSA/CBP would not / do not pull a gun on somebody at the start of an encounter?
2) The official and very low "force continuum" threshold for deadly force would be disregarded by police with their guns already drawn?
3) That having a gun to their heads, most people would NOT "consent" to whatever they were told to consent to?
4) That any consent given in #3 could be considered as true consent?

:dunno:
 
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...

Think Albuquerque police department. They try not to take people to jail. It's too much work. Lead works better.
 
tmyers said:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I should really stop reading this thread. The more I think about how one group of people think they are above reproach to the point of damaging another's property with no accountability for their actions the higher my blood pressure rises.

It is a simple lack of basic decency and fairness.
Click to expand...

ClimbnSink said:
I understand they can rip a car to shreds without repercussion, I'd imagine an airplane would be the same. Only less sympathy from the courts and public. Thank god for safety.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

While I have only had one slightly unpleasant experience with CBP (nothing even close to any of these accounts) in the 10 or so times I've flown GA (all were legit and routine stops returning from the Bahamas or Canada), If that ever happened to me, I'd put in a claim to my insurance company and have them pay for any damage.

Not that it makes it right or anything....

Of course, by the next day, all of their faces would be on Youtube since I always carry a few cameras with me whenever I fly (not out of paranoia, just like to film)

As bad as things have gotten with the Federal Govt, the saving grace is that the citizen is stronger than ever with the technology that allows us to film anything anywhere on a whim and then allow thousands, if not millions to see it within hours
 
Last edited:
tmyers said:
So the children are expendable as long as you are not inconvenienced.
Click to expand...


Actually, yes. Darwin in action. Not my kid. Good luck finding yours that you misplaced. If you can't find it, it's pretty easy to make new ones, I hear.

Mean? Maybe. But definitely not my problem.
 
19 U.S. Code § 1581 - Boarding vessels

Just found this:

19 U.S. Code § 1581 - Boarding vessels

(a) Customs officers
Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act [19 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.], or at any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel compliance.
 
did he consent to the search? Or did they just do it?

If they just did it you need to find a lawyer post haste and file a civil rights complaint against all police forces and law enforcement which participated.

If the hangar door was closed - and the plane was out - a clear violation. Since he CANNOT consent to a search of a closed and locked area that he lacks even the apparent authority to consent to .. .
 
paflyer said:
Hell, they'll lie to get a lousy traffic conviction, so why not?
Click to expand...

guys- here are the facts of life:

AMOC told the local CBP to go search this guy. No facts at all - just the 'suspicious flight plan' to the Bahamas. No matter WHAT the CFIs they will claim that they received consent from him. Absent video - its a he said / he said and we all know how that works out with cops.

This is why recording needs to happen -

Had a situation where a person was cited for an 'illegal' 'U' turn. No such beast in California = you can make an 'unsafe' u-turn but even with a posted no U-turn sign you can still make one if it is safe.

Had a client, and picture this - made a u-turn in front of a no-u-turn sign at 530a in a suburb 0 not another vehicle within 3 miles - except for the cop sitting at the side of the road behind a fence - he could NOT see one way down the intersecting street.

He could obtain a conviction by testifying that there were cars coming up the street in front of the u-turn that were required to brake to avoid collission. so thats what he testified to - clearly a blatant lie over a $125 ticket.

He did not know that I had obtained his video from that entire morning.

I rolled it back to the stop. And played it for him. My client appears, passes him - and then he pulls out - the camera shows the street - his u-turn to get my client and then the stop - no a single car passed in front of his camera the entire time or was even visible down the entire street during the entire period of the recording.

I asked him if he wanted to amend his testimony about other vehicles - and the idiot said no. the Judge asked him - are you sure officer? He said no, very angrily. The judge then found my client not guilty, asked that prosecutor be brought into court, and asked that perjury charges be filed against the officer, who was cuffed by fellow members of his department and hauled off.

Never knew what happened -

In this - I would file a civil rights complaint just so you can obtain the information they based the stop on . . . if it is relevant to their defense- then you get it - end of story. They'll bytch, whine, moan, complain, threaten, cajole, etc etc etc but sooner or later a judge will order them to turn it over - and - considering there are no criminal charges to drop to make you go away - and you are suing them - its a beautiful situation to put some sunshine up their rears. . . the moment they have run out of appeals - and have to disclose their non-evidence and lack of probable cause, you will get a check. A nice fat one.
 
Last edited:
That's awesome.

comanchepilot said:
guys- here are the facts of life:

AMOC told the local CBP to go search this guy. No facts at all - just the 'suspicious flight plan' to the Bahamas. No matter WHAT the CFIs they will claim that they received consent from him. Absent video - its a he said / he said and we all know how that works out with cops.

This is why recording needs to happen -

Had a situation where a person was cited for an 'illegal' 'U' turn. No such beast in California = you can make an 'unsafe' u-turn but even with a posted no U-turn sign you can still make one if it is safe.

Had a client, and picture this - made a u-turn in front of a no-u-turn sign at 530a in a suburb 0 not another vehicle within 3 miles - except for the cop sitting at the side of the road behind a fence - he could NOT see one way down the intersecting street.

He could obtain a conviction by testifying that there were cars coming up the street in front of the u-turn that were required to brake to avoid collission. so thats what he testified to - clearly a blatant lie over a $125 ticket.

He did not know that I had obtained his video from that entire morning.

I rolled it back to the stop. And played it for him. My client appears, passes him - and then he pulls out - the camera shows the street - his u-turn to get my client and then the stop - no a single car passed in front of his camera the entire time.

I asked him if he wanted to amend his testimony about other vehicles - and the idiot said no. the Judge asked him - are you sure officer? He said no, very angrily. The judge then found my client not guilty, asked that prosecutor be brought into court, and asked that perjury charges be filed against the officer, who was cuffed by fellow members of his department and hauled off.

Never knew what happened -

In this - I would file a civil rights complaint just so you can obtain the information they based the stop on . . . if it is relevant to their defense- then you get it - end of story. They'll bytch, whine, moan, complain, threaten, cajole, etc etc etc but sooner or later a judge will order them to turn it over - and - considering there are no criminal charges to drop to make you go away - and you are suing them - its a beautiful situation to put some sunshine up their rears. . . the moment they have run out of appeals - and have to disclose their non-evidence and lack of probable cause, you will get a check. A nice fat one.
Click to expand...
 
comanchepilot said:
guys- here are the facts of life:

AMOC told the local CBP to go search this guy. No facts at all - just the 'suspicious flight plan' to the Bahamas. No matter WHAT the CFIs they will claim that they received consent from him. Absent video - its a he said / he said and we all know how that works out with cops.

This is why recording needs to happen -

Had a situation where a person was cited for an 'illegal' 'U' turn. No such beast in California = you can make an 'unsafe' u-turn but even with a posted no U-turn sign you can still make one if it is safe.

Had a client, and picture this - made a u-turn in front of a no-u-turn sign at 530a in a suburb 0 not another vehicle within 3 miles - except for the cop sitting at the side of the road behind a fence - he could NOT see one way down the intersecting street.

He could obtain a conviction by testifying that there were cars coming up the street in front of the u-turn that were required to brake to avoid collission. so thats what he testified to - clearly a blatant lie over a $125 ticket.

He did not know that I had obtained his video from that entire morning.

I rolled it back to the stop. And played it for him. My client appears, passes him - and then he pulls out - the camera shows the street - his u-turn to get my client and then the stop - no a single car passed in front of his camera the entire time or was even visible down the entire street during the entire period of the recording.

I asked him if he wanted to amend his testimony about other vehicles - and the idiot said no. the Judge asked him - are you sure officer? He said no, very angrily. The judge then found my client not guilty, asked that prosecutor be brought into court, and asked that perjury charges be filed against the officer, who was cuffed by fellow members of his department and hauled off.

Never knew what happened -

In this - I would file a civil rights complaint just so you can obtain the information they based the stop on . . . if it is relevant to their defense- then you get it - end of story. They'll bytch, whine, moan, complain, threaten, cajole, etc etc etc but sooner or later a judge will order them to turn it over - and - considering there are no criminal charges to drop to make you go away - and you are suing them - its a beautiful situation to put some sunshine up their rears. . . the moment they have run out of appeals - and have to disclose their non-evidence and lack of probable cause, you will get a check. A nice fat one.
Click to expand...

Comanche Pilot: PM me your contact information. I live on the other side of the country, but if this ever happens to me and I can hire you (even to advise a local attorney) I will.

I'm assuming you have a stronger case in lieu of video if the authorities have to cut open a bag or snip the lock on your hangar? If you consented, then why wouldn't you have unlocked the areas to be searched voluntarily?...
 
IMHO, these should be illegal. I read an article on AOPA where CBP came after a pilot GUNS DRAWN, with a K-9, and asked for consent to search. It was basically an "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse" moment. Either he consented to the search or they would arrest him for obstruction of justice or something like that.

I'd just put a cheap camera up, have it record AND send video to my home. Then take the footage to a lawyer. Even if they took the camera, they'd have to go into your house to confiscate all the footage, and doing so without a warrant is, obviously, illegal.
 
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?
 
rpayne88 said:
IMHO, these should be illegal. I read an article on AOPA where CBP came after a pilot GUNS DRAWN, with a K-9, and asked for consent to search. It was basically an "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse" moment. Either he consented to the search or they would arrest him for obstruction of justice or something like that.

I'd just put a cheap camera up, have it record AND send video to my home. Then take the footage to a lawyer. Even if they took the camera, they'd have to go into your house to confiscate all the footage, and doing so without a warrant is, obviously, illegal.
Click to expand...

While, I am in agreement with you, I do wonder what the response would be to recording it. I have gone through this situation a few times in my head and honestly I don't know what I would do. On one hand I want to say no consent, but I fear they may make it even more painful for me. On the other hand, as much as I disagree with it, consent and hope they don't render my plane unairworthy. Either way, my plane could become a pile of pieces and there isn't any thing that I can do about it.

Would a typical owner's insurance policy even cover a situation like this?
 
Good question. They could then try to subrogate against CBP. That would be interesting (if it's even possible).
 
comanchepilot said:
guys- here are the facts of life:

This is why recording needs to happen -
.
Click to expand...


I guess the next time one of us has border protection or even a ramp check agent itching to rip the plane apart you can start recording with your smart phone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top