Visit from CBP at my hangar

[bahama flier]

In the last ten years, I have flown to the Bahamas over 80 times, no surprise CBP wanted to look at me. I usually fly VFR, so my take off time can be various over two hours from flight plan schedule.

I took a boat over to the Bahamas and wanted my flight instructor to come get me in my plane. He filed IFR, lift off was time certain.

As My friend warmed up my plane, and starting to taxi, he was surrounded by THREE marked CBP cars, and six armed CBP Officers.

My friend was ordered to stop, turn off motor, empty the entire plane of everything except gas, log books were searched, maps checked, and pages searched to see if any contraband was in the pages of maps and books.

Having found nothing, the Pilot was ordered to unlock the hangar and it was searched, tool boxes, desk, parts on the shelf and anything that was within the confines of the hangar. If your hangar is on airport property no search warrant is needed to look at anything and everything you have on it including your vehicles. (that's what CBP said)

The Pilot was searched and his fly buddy, and the money in their wallet was counted, but he was not strip searched but it was mentioned.

I don't know what prompted the search, but I go to extremes to me 100% legal as I can, because Big Brother is watching, and you never know when it will happen even in the Bahamas.

 

[EdFred]

Sounds like a 4th amendment violation to me.

 

[tmyers]

If they tried to strip search me I think I might be able to conjur up a present for them.

 

[AdamZ]

I hope that you have reported this incident to AOPA as well as your local congress person.

I am not at all convinced this search was legal. First off CBP can search you and your belongings at a border. The boarder does not necessarily have to be something like the Friendship Bridge between Canada and the US but can be further inland, for example St. Louis Airport could be a border for international flights that land there. CBP can also search with in a certain distance of a border.

What's odd is that I have never heard of a search when outbound. That said if such a search sans warrant is permitted and I'm not convinced it is then that does not mean that they can also search your hangar. Just because CBP says they don't need a warrant to search your hangar because its on airport property does not mean they are right. They might emphasis on "might" be able to search it if its deemed a border but not simply because its on airport property.

Keep in mind that just because an LEO says they can do something does not mean they can. They are permitted to bluff. If the airport was not considered a border or if its only considered a border for the incoming flight then the search was in my humble opinion illegal.

Really the most important thing for you to do now is report this to AOPA and ask their advice.

 

[tmyers]

OK, I have the que card that AOPA issued for these searches. Has anyone followed the outlined responses and reported how it was received by LEO's?

 

[AdamZ]

OK, I have the que card that AOPA issued for these searches. Has anyone followed the outlined responses and reported how it was received by LEO's?

I have not heard anyone who has. I'd love to hear AOPAs advice and take on this because unlike the 60 or so other interceptions this was for a filed international flight and the border search rule might apply. Not sure it does but it is an interesting twist. If it does then the same rules don't apply.

 

[tmyers]

We had a recent event at our local field where a friend reported that two local LEO's drove onto the taxiway with lights flashing. We was departing but was not between the cars so he went ahead and departed. No one ever found out why they were there. A couple weeks earlier i was cleaning up the hangar and they kept driving up and down my hangar row. They never stopped. I really hope they are trained to look for aircraft movement on the taxiways.

 

[eman1200]

......If your hangar is on airport property no search warrant is needed.....

wait, what?!? where the F else would a hangar be?!? well, I guess in some of these airport communities you might have a hangar attached to your house, but jeez, this is crazy!!

 

[DJTorrente]

Remember this line: "I do not consent to this search." Repeat at every oppportunity. Record the encounter via audio and/or video as you are able. Do nothing to physically interefere with what the gestapo are doing. Call your lawyer.

 

[JeffDG]

Magic words are "I do not consent."

Will it stop them from searching? If they've decided to do so, probably not. But what it will do is permit you to challenge anything they find in court.

If they say "Hey, we can search your hangar because it's on airport property, do you consent?" and you say "Yes", then their search is legal, because it's consensual and does not require a warrant or probable cause. If you say "No", then you preserve the issue for court.

 

[Badger]

I always thought about videoing an event like this if I was ever stopped at a law enforcement 'sting'. But in reality, a video would probably just **** the LEO off more and they would take their anger out on a more thorough/lengthy search - legal or otherwise

 

[tmyers]

I think your correct about just making them more determined.

 

[Matthew]

But...

If you didn't have anything to hide, why would it be a problem?

--

"Yeah, we got a call. You mind very much if we just look around a minute? It's all airport property anyway, we'll be out of here in just a bit."

"I don't consent to a search."

"Aww, don't start playing that card. We just have to follow up to a call, just routine. You know this is airport property. You aren't trying to hide something are you?"

<Silence - you've already made your statement>

Of course - this is easy for me to say, since it hasn't happened to me yet.

 

[ARFlyer]

It's a double edge sword.

If you don't consent your just going to **** them off more. If you do consent your opening everyone else up to the same searches.

I'd would most likely end up consenting anyway because I'd lose my travel rights with CBP. Plus my work aircraft are government owned.

 

[Matthew]

It's a double edge sword.

If you don't consent your just going to **** them off more. If you do consent your opening everyone else up to the same searches.

I'd rather they get ****** off.

It's the 99% of them that are giving the 1% a bad reputation.

 

[Clark1961]

Just a comment on outbound searches - CBP has been looking for cash leaving the US for at least six months now. I learned about it on a commercial flight to the Caribbean. Basically if over $10k cash on hand ya better have the paperwork. Nevermind the limitations on taking credit cards at many locations...

 

[JeffDG]

Just a comment on outbound searches - CBP has been looking for cash leaving the US for at least six months now. I learned about it on a commercial flight to the Caribbean. Basically if over $10k cash on hand ya better have the paperwork. Nevermind the limitations on taking credit cards at many locations...

It's not illegal to take more than $10k out of the country, you just have to declare it to the Treasury.

 

[Banjo33]

There's a thread on MooneySpace where someone was stopped/searched by CBP this week too. New Orleans PD had a dog on site that "hit" on something during the walk-around giving CBP the authority to strip the interior from the plane (of course nothing was found and the aircraft paint was damaged from the dog). The AOPA card seemed to **** them off more than anything.

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/11918-custome-border-patrol-finally-stopped-me-with-armed-police/

 

[CT4ME]

What's odd is that I have never heard of a search when outbound.

Ever since the eApis system, there have been LOTS of outbound searches. After all, they know pretty much exactly when/where you are taking off.

 

[bahama flier]

I was not there, just my pilot friend flying to get me, but letting them search was faster than ****ing them off, and holding them up longer. I did call AOPA, they said since the CBP took no action, no problem, but the legal dept was aware of this happening in several places and were trying to find out why, but no comment so far from CBP.

Search by a LEO might have been subject to more questions, but the CBP did not ask, they just ordered the search. The pilot DID think they were searching for money they way they were looking thru his books an papers, looking thru the pages of his flight books.

Normally I would been complimented asking if I had $10,000.00 on me,,

The Bahamas watch you if you win over $10,000.00 and take it out of their country, they will arrest you if you do not declare it. Just recently, some on a cruise ship were arrested. Posted on their local news paper. Bahamas and the US want their cut of your money.

 

[tmyers]

This crap is going to escalate to the point that someone gets hurt or worse. When will our elected officials really get involved and start to tapdance on the heads of CBP for what appears to be illegal search and seizure?

One of the respondents on the Mooney board said he would lock his aircraft. I could just see someone getting beaten with a baton to get the keys out of their pocket.

Saw a video of an off duty LEO being pulled over by an on duty LEO. Since the off duty LEO knew his rights were being abused he started insisting to talk to the shift supervisor. It escalated into lots of screaming and turned physical.

It is just a mater of time till this happens with a pilot.

I fully support the proper use of authority by our LEO's, but the behavior described in the Mooney thread is illegal and the officers need to be punished just as one of us would if we did the same thing.

 

[0luke1]

But...

If you didn't have anything to hide, why would it be a problem?

Google NY City Detective Scarcella.

 

[son_of_a_gun]

... but the legal dept was aware of this happening in several places and were trying to find out why, but no comment so far from CBP.

The why is pretty evident. We've lived in a police state for quite some time. The leash is getting shorter and shorter and, I believe, flying is the most federally regulated avocation one can choose.

 

[beestforwardspeed]

Ever since the eApis system, there have been LOTS of outbound searches. After all, they know pretty much exactly when/where you are taking off.

One way to get around that (legally) is to takeoff from a 3rd airport, do a T&G at the Eapis filed airport, and then fly onto your international destination.

 

[wsuffa]

Sounds like a 4th amendment violation to me.

I hope that you have reported this incident to AOPA as well as your local congress person.

I am not at all convinced this search was legal. First off CBP can search you and your belongings at a border. The boarder does not necessarily have to be something like the Friendship Bridge between Canada and the US but can be further inland, for example St. Louis Airport could be a border for international flights that land there. CBP can also search with in a certain distance of a border.

What's odd is that I have never heard of a search when outbound. That said if such a search sans warrant is permitted and I'm not convinced it is then that does not mean that they can also search your hangar. Just because CBP says they don't need a warrant to search your hangar because its on airport property does not mean they are right. They might emphasis on "might" be able to search it if its deemed a border but not simply because its on airport property.

I think it's something like 200 miles from the border. ANd the "border" is defined as an international airport with CBP facilities, so it covers most of the US. This is the same reason they use for setting up highway checkpoints well inland from the Mexican border (Texas, Arizona, California).

The CBP lives on some established policy that your 4th Amendment rights don't apply at the border. This is how/why they seize laptop computers at airport Customs facilities (and is, not coincidentally, why many companies require that a "clean loaner" computer be used when traveling internationally.

My quess would be that having a leasehold on a hangar would put it off-limits for a warrantless search (as a Fourth amendment violation). But it is permissable with consent, and the law enforcement people can lie. As a practical matter, however, they can go to the landlord or get a warrant and detain you until it's issued. Most likely your lease notes that the landlord may enter the premisis upon request of a LEO. (Techically, asserting constitutional rights is not "probable cause", but many LEOs treat refusal as probable cause - "if you have nothing to hide...." kind of thinking).

This stuff won't stop until either 1) General Aviation is destroyed, or 2) someone manages to take a case to the Supreme Court and it rules against the Government. I will leave speculation on whether or not they would rule in your favor to the Spin Zone.

Adam, I agree that this is an AOPA issue - but it is a much larger issue than that.... by extension, the justification used by CBP in this case for the hangar search ANY business at an airport could be searched at will if even on international traveler entered the premisis. Most Americans recognize the role of CBP when entering the country from abroad - what they don't realize is the tactics used on departing passengers. Good, hard-hitting journalism & media exposure could help (unfortunately, the likelihood of that happening today is slim to none). Were it me, I'd be visiting my elected representatives office promptly to request action. Frankly I think AOPA is utterly impotent on this issue.

Side note: I've traveled (commercially) on many occasions. Every once in a while, CBP will send a couple of uniformed, armed officers to walk through the plane and question passengers on OUTBOUND flights. Once they brought a dog on board. No obvious threats, but distinct intimidation as passengers are ordered to remain in their seats while the officers are in the cabin. I recall it occurring at smaller CBP stations (like CVG and RDU), where there are limited international inbounds and the officers are not that busy. In addition, twice at RDU, the CBP officers collected and checked ID & boarding passes (randomly interrogating passengers) immediately after the airline gate agent scanned them.

We may not have obvious exit controls like other countries, but sometimes the actions of CBP make it seem that way.

 

[EdFred]

I think it's something like 200 miles from the border. ANd the "border" is defined as an international airport with CBP facilities, so it covers most of the US. This is the same reason they use for setting up highway checkpoints well inland from the Mexican border (Texas, Arizona, California).

So basically the CBP can search anybody, anywhere, anytime - including my house, your house, etc...

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Question for the lawyers: generally you need to have standing to sue. Does that apply to civil rights cases as well?

It would seem to me that saying "no" and refusing to help would better set up a follow-on lawsuit. If they cut the lock that's damage and you'd have standing. If they order you ti unlock it then later they can claim you consented to a search. Removing the keys from your person and unlocking the hangar would likewise show you did not consent.

If you say "ok to search" and the dog damages your paint, can you sue? What if you say "no?"

 

[wsuffa]

So basically the CBP can search anybody, anywhere, anytime - including my house, your house, etc...

I think there are restrictions on it, but IANAL. A quick look indicates that it's 100 miles, not 200 miles. But still.....

 

[beestforwardspeed]

I think there are restrictions on it, but IANAL. A quick look indicates that it's 100 miles, not 200 miles. But still.....

But the courts have still ruled that they need reasonable suspicion to search within the 100 mile zone. They can't just do it randomly IOW.

Of course they can search for any reason (or no reason at all) if you are actually crossing our border, or the functional equiv, but that has never been up for question since the 1770's

 

[Mike5250]

If CBP or another agency search me without a warrant I might need AdamZ to represent me! Can they really shoot at you if you taxied out past them? Sounds like your CFI was put in a difficult position and wanted to cooperate.

 

[JeffDG]

To be clear, neither the police nor CBP require a "warrant" to search your car or aircraft.

They do, however, require either probable cause or consent to do so. A warrant is one way that the government can establish, to an independent third party, that they have probable cause to search a place. It is not, however, the only way they can show probable cause.

 

[AdamZ]

To be clear, neither the police nor CBP require a "warrant" to search your car or aircraft.

They do, however, require either probable cause or consent to do so. A warrant is one way that the government can establish, to an independent third party, that they have probable cause to search a place. It is not, however, the only way they can show probable cause.

Jeff, not exactly correct. As previously stated searches at a border are a different animal. But Police can't just search your care because they have probable cause. They can search your car if 1) Contraband is in plain view, 2) you consent or 3) The search is for officer safety, which is usually negated once you are removed from the car.

Police need probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant which would permit a search of the car.

I tell my client's the following: 1) Always treat officers with respect regardless whether they are civil or acting like a class "A" jerk. 2) Never make any statements. I've never seen a client talk themselves out of an arrest but many have talked themselves into a conviction. 3) Do not consent to a search. If they want to search let them get a warrant. If they don't have cause to get a warrant they may keep you for a while but they won't get the warrant. My favorite is when the client says " They told me if I didn't let them search they'd get a warrant" my response is always " Great let them get a warrant"

 

[Scott@KTYR]

Post#20 - He said they did not Ask, they said we are going to search.
What do you tell your client's to do then?

Jeff, not exactly correct. As previously stated searches at a border are a different animal. But Police can't just search your care because they have probable cause. They can search your car if 1) Contraband is in plain view, 2) you consent or 3) The search is for officer safety, which is usually negated once you are removed from the car.

Police need probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant which would permit a search of the car.

I tell my client's the following: 1) Always treat officers with respect regardless whether they are civil or acting like a class "A" jerk. 2) Never make any statements. I've never seen a client talk themselves out of an arrest but many have talked themselves into a conviction. 3) Do not consent to a search. If they want to search let them get a warrant. If they don't have cause to get a warrant they may keep you for a while but they won't get the warrant. My favorite is when the client says " They told me if I didn't let them search they'd get a warrant" my response is always " Great let them get a warrant"

 

[jesse]

Post#20 - He said they did not Ask, they said we are going to search.
What do you tell your client's to do then?

You tell them that you do not consent to the search. If they proceed to ignore that you said that there isn't much you can do but in court they'll have to prove the search was legal regardless of what they find.

 

[pj500]

Guys,

This is a known international border crossing complete with international flight plan.

The AOPA fiasco concentrated more on pilots who could (or were able to prove) they did not depart and/or did not intend to depart the USA.

The search rules are different here. I have no clue about the hangar part being legal, but basically they can strip search you for no cause coming/going to the USA.

 

[Clip4]

In the last ten years, I have flown to the Bahamas over 80 times, no surprise CBP wanted to look at me. I usually fly VFR, so my take off time can be various over two hours from flight plan schedule.

I took a boat over to the Bahamas and wanted my flight instructor to come get me in my plane. He filed IFR, lift off was time certain.

As My friend warmed up my plane, and starting to taxi, he was surrounded by THREE marked CBP cars, and six armed CBP Officers.

My friend was ordered to stop, turn off motor, empty the entire plane of everything except gas, log books were searched, maps checked, and pages searched to see if any contraband was in the pages of maps and books.

Having found nothing, the Pilot was ordered to unlock the hangar and it was searched, tool boxes, desk, parts on the shelf and anything that was within the confines of the hangar. If your hangar is on airport property no search warrant is needed to look at anything and everything you have on it including your vehicles. (that's what CBP said)

The Pilot was searched and his fly buddy, and the money in their wallet was counted, but he was not strip searched but it was mentioned.

I don't know what prompted the search, but I go to extremes to me 100% legal as I can, because Big Brother is watching, and you never know when it will happen even in the Bahamas.

The warrantless hangar search is interesting, I believe the courts would disagree with CBD at a suppression hearing.

 

[mcmanigle]

But Police can't just search your care because they have probable cause. They can search your car if 1) Contraband is in plain view, 2) you consent or 3) The search is for officer safety, which is usually negated once you are removed from the car.

Police need probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant which would permit a search of the car.

This may be true in your state, but the Federal rule is that probable cause alone is enough to search a vehicle, even without a warrant, even if there is no practical reason not to obtain a warrant (exigency etc). (As much as I hate "citing" Wikipedia, they do a good job of the facts on this one here.)

Question for the lawyers: generally you need to have standing to sue. Does that apply to civil rights cases as well?

Generally yes. Some limited exceptions for First Amendment claims based on 'chilling effect' of censorship rules, but this is the reason civil rights lawyers are often looking for 'the right' plaintiffs for a civil rights case -- gay spouses with tax returns to file, mobile phone subscribers with good reasons to keep their contacts private, etc. -- you need the Article III standing. (Again this doesn't apply in all states, but if you're going after CBP, it would be in a federal court.)


IANAL, but I do read way too much SCOTUSblog.

 

[weilke]

I think there are restrictions on it, but IANAL. A quick look indicates that it's 100 miles, not 200 miles. But still.....

CBP can search a 'conveyance' for the presence of uninspected aliens anywhere anytime without a warrant. All they need is reasonable suspicion that a foreign national is on board (Title 8).

When it comes to searching for contraband , enforcing import regulations (Title 19&21) they have geographic restrictions in relation to ports of entry. If they know that the plane either crossed a border or is intending to cross a border, no such geographic restrictions apply (e.g. if they track a plane from mexican airspace to an airport deep inland).

As far as I understand it, if he had filed an IFR outbound flight-plan to the Bahamas, CBP was within their rights to inspect his aircraft for things like drug related cash or weapons used as payment for drugs. Different from most other countries, the US doesn't perform routine outbound inspections, doesn't mean CBP can't perform them if they want to. I dont think that authority would have covered the search of the hangar.

 

[Cruiser]

snip.......

As My friend warmed up my plane, and starting to taxi, he was surrounded by THREE marked CBP cars, and six armed CBP Officers.

My friend was ordered to stop, turn off motor, empty the entire plane of everything except gas, log books were searched, maps checked, and pages searched to see if any contraband was in the pages of maps and books.

.....snip.

What about § 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.?

Once the engine started the pilot was in command of a legal flight. It would seem that the CBP violated the FAA regulations on this one.

 

[murphey]

What about § 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.?

Once the engine started the pilot was in command of a legal flight. It would seem that the CBP violated the FAA regulations on this one.

In that case the pilot coul call the FBI and claim CBP was interferring.

Any guesses on the FBI's reply?