Why are ramp checks allowed when random traffic stops are not?

Huckster79

Huckster79

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
2,394
Display Name
Display name:
Huckster79
This was mentioned in a reply on another thread but prompted my wonder…

Law enforcement is not constitutionally allowed to see me in a parking lot doing nothing wrong and roll up and inspect my vehicle and check my license and such…

however in my airplane they could….

Why is one considered out of bounds by the 4/5th amendment and the other isn’t?

Both driving and flying are privileges not rights, so that’s not it. Ones federal ones state regulated but I still don’t think the FBI could just do a vehicle inspection when I walk out of Walmart…

I’m just curious of what technicality allows for one but not the other…
 
One would tick off everyone and the media so it’s a nightmare of a PR battle to fight. The other inconveniences less than 1% of the population that is widely perceived to be ‘rich’ so no one cares and the media won’t make an issue of it.
 
RudyP said:
widely perceived to be ‘rich’ so no one cares
Click to expand...
This. I think most people secretly, or not so secretly, hope to see the "rich" suffer. Trading Places, I think, is a decent example of this in popular media.
 
Huckster79 said:
Why is one considered out of bounds by the 4/5th amendment and the other isn’t?
Click to expand...
iu
 
You have stickers on cars to show compliance with regulations. If the stickers are not up to snuff, you can be stopped.

do you want to have to have to prove compliance annually and get a government sticker to affix to your plane as proof?


Secondly, there are weigh stations to verify compliance with weight of trucks, and nobody complains about a violation of the constitution, something which is not an issue with cars, but is with aircraft.
 
Under your scenario of being parked in a parking lot: in our state (Michigan) police are allowed to run your plate without any reason, then run the registered owner for wants/warrants (it's considered public information).

In a plane, there are specific things the FAA can check, such as your certificate/medical/W&B/registration (?), and they can make a "walk around" check of your aircraft. But they can't board it or search without your permission.

As far as why they can check your certificate/medical? IDK.
 
Huckster79 said:
This was mentioned in a reply on another thread but prompted my wonder…

Law enforcement is not constitutionally allowed to see me in a parking lot doing nothing wrong and roll up and inspect my vehicle and check my license and such…

however in my airplane they could….

Why is one considered out of bounds by the 4/5th amendment and the other isn’t?

Both driving and flying are privileges not rights, so that’s not it. Ones federal ones state regulated but I still don’t think the FBI could just do a vehicle inspection when I walk out of Walmart…

I’m just curious of what technicality allows for one but not the other…
Click to expand...
Do you mean FSDO doing ramp checks? Can the local deputy dawg do it also without probable cause? I dunno. Just thinking this sound like maybe an apples n oranges thing.
 
Oh, and in many states (but not Michigan), random traffic stops ARE allowed in the form of sobriety check lanes....
 
traffic stops in MD happen for just about any reason.......light out, no signal lane change......etc.
 
Huckster79 said:
This was mentioned in a reply on another thread but prompted my wonder…

Law enforcement is not constitutionally allowed to see me in a parking lot doing nothing wrong and roll up and inspect my vehicle and check my license and such…

however in my airplane they could….

Why is one considered out of bounds by the 4/5th amendment and the other isn’t?

Both driving and flying are privileges not rights, so that’s not it. Ones federal ones state regulated but I still don’t think the FBI could just do a vehicle inspection when I walk out of Walmart…

I’m just curious of what technicality allows for one but not the other…
Click to expand...

My theory is that police cars are always running your plates. If anything shows up, they can stop you. My wife was stopped one time for an expired driver's license. She didn't know it had expired. But the officer somehow did. How they made the connection between the plate number and who might be driving the car is a mystery to me.
 
Basically because the 4th amendment protection has a long list of exceptions and I’m guessing airplanes would be considered an administrative search where the public’s interest outweighs the individual’s right to privacy, basically, government says so, because basically what @RudyP said.

“By 1992, it was no longer the case that the “warrants-with-narrow-exceptions” standard normally prevails over a “reasonableness” approach….Exceptions to the warrant requirement have multiplied, tending to confine application of the requirement to cases that are exclusively “criminal” in nature. And even within that core area of “criminal” cases, some exceptions have been broadened.
The most important category of exception is that of administrative searches justified by “special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Under this general rubric the Court has upheld warrantless searches by administrative authorities in public schools, government offices, and prisons, and has upheld drug testing of public and transportation employees…
In all of these instances, the warrant and probable cause requirements are dispensed with in favor of a reasonableness standard that balances the government’s regulatory interest against the individual’s privacy interest; in all of these instances, the government’s interest has been found to outweigh the individual’s. The broad scope of the administrative search exception is evidenced by the fact that an overlap between law enforcement objectives and administrative “special needs” does not result in application of the warrant requirement; instead, the Court has upheld warrantless inspection of automobile junkyards and dismantling operations in spite of the strong law enforcement component of the regulation.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/search-and-seizure

Disclaimer, I’m not a lawyer and haven’t bothered to try to find cases involving airplane searches without warrant. I didn’t even read the entire page I linked above.
 
In theory, and in general, a traffic stop requires probable cause in the form of an observed infraction.

I recall courts have ruled that things like DUI checkpoints are legal if they are truly random - I.e. stopping every car or every fifth car or whatever. Not saying I agree, but that’s what I recall as the legal justification. The way the laws are mostly written a driver is compelled to show his or her license, registration and proof of insurance (if required) regardless of whether the stop is legitimate. The time to fight the legitimacy of the stop is later in court. What’s not OK is just stopping a car on a hunch, because of racial profiling or for no reason at all.

I don’t know if the FAA has similar protocols. It might make an interesting court case to fight a charge that stemmed from a “search” or “seizure” without probable cause for an aircraft owner.

edited to add: composed while Rushie was posting hers. It’s a much more comprehensive explanation.
 
Huckster79 said:
This was mentioned in a reply on another thread but prompted my wonder…

Law enforcement is not constitutionally allowed to see me in a parking lot doing nothing wrong and roll up and inspect my vehicle and check my license and such…

however in my airplane they could….

Why is one considered out of bounds by the 4/5th amendment and the other isn’t?

Both driving and flying are privileges not rights, so that’s not it. Ones federal ones state regulated but I still don’t think the FBI could just do a vehicle inspection when I walk out of Walmart…

I’m just curious of what technicality allows for one but not the other…
Click to expand...

Federal law.

49 U.S.C. § 44709

(a) Reinspection and reexamination. --The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Federal law.

49 U.S.C. § 44709

(a) Reinspection and reexamination. --The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that doesn't answer the question being asked. Statutory authority does not make an unconstitutional governmental activity legal.

@Rushie gave the basic answer. Simplistic but essentially correct. The standards for administrative searches are different than the standards for criminal searches. Generally speaking criminal searches (with or without a warrant) require probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the search will discover evidence of it. Administrative searches, on the other hand, can be upheld based on reasonable standards for inspection of regulated activity.

As usual, the devil is in the details.

(Trivia note: at one time the SCOTUS said the 4th Amendment only applied to criminal searches and not at all to administrative ones)
 
Last edited:
There's a difference. A traffic STOP involves stopping someone that is moving. What is permitted is coming up to someone who is already stopped for some reason and making inquiries. This is called a consensual stop under the law and permitted.
 
FastEddieB said:
That’s the justification. But just being enshrined in Federal Law doesn’t mean that law might not be challenged as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

How is it unconstitutional?

This law was written by congress, approved by the senate and signed into law by the President. As specified in the US constitution.

Has anyone tried to get into the courts and have the USSC decide the constitutionality of this law?
 
Security and safety often come at a high price constitutionally. The FAA regulations ensure the safety of people riding in airplanes. Not our rights. It is the normal process of government to seek control and take away rights whenever Possible.
 
Doc Holliday said:
How is it unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I didn’t say it was.

This law was written by congress, approved by the senate and signed into law by the President. As specified in the US constitution.
Click to expand...

Many such laws have later been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.

Has anyone tried to get into the courts and have the USSC decide the constitutionality of this law?
Click to expand...

I don’t know. If not, it might be an interesting test case.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes, but that doesn't answer the question being asked. Statutory authority does not make an unconstitutional governmental activity legal.
Click to expand...

That's a typical lawyer deflection.

The OP asked:

Huckster79 said:
Both driving and flying are privileges not rights, so that’s not it. Ones federal ones state regulated but I still don’t think the FBI could just do a vehicle inspection when I walk out of Walmart…

I’m just curious of what technicality allows for one but not the other…
Click to expand...

The FBI doesn't do automobile safety inspections AFAIK, and I can't readily point to any federal laws or regulations dealing with automobile and driver safety, as that is handled at the state level.

However, 49USC 44709 is a federal law, one that was passed by congress and signed into law by a president, all IAW the constitution. I'm not aware of any USSC rulings declaring 49USC 44709 as unconstitutional.

So can you point to the cases that have challenged 49 USC 44709 and the rulings that this law is indeed unconstitutional?
 
FastEddieB said:
Many such laws have later been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Until 49USC 44709 is challenged in court, it is an enforceable law, wouldn't you agree?


FastEddieB said:
I don’t know. If not, it might be an interesting test case.
Click to expand...

Here's your chance. All you need is a lawyer and a court filing. Best of luck. ;)
 
Doc, what good is the constitution, if laws can be passed that violate it, or even worse, administrative rules can be created to bypass it? That's the whole point of the constitution.

I'm not arguing that there's a problem with ramp checks. I'm only saying that an administrative rule NEVER trumps the constituion.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Until 49USC 44709 is challenged in court, it is an enforceable law, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Ah, now I see. We're back to the "there's no harm until someone proves there is harm" theory. That makes me ill. That's like cheering a rule that allows slavery as long as nobody has challenged it in court yet. Until then, it's ok! Yay!
 
Salty said:
Doc, what good is the constitution, if laws can be passed that violate it, or even worse, administrative rules can be created to bypass it? That's the whole point of the constitution.

I'm not arguing that there's a problem with ramp checks. I'm only saying that an administrative rule NEVER trumps the constituion.
Click to expand...

49 USC is not administrative, it is federal law.
 
Salty said:
Ah, now I see. We're back to the "there's no harm until someone proves there is harm" theory. That makes me ill.
Click to expand...

Sorry you feel bad.


FastEddieB said:
Not really. Lots of laws that were “…passed by congress and signed into law by a president, all IAW the constitution…” were later ruled unconstitutional.

To wit: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/
Click to expand...

OK, we're getting somewhere! So has 49USC 44709 been challenged? Or do we as citizens get to pick and choose which laws we will follow?
 
Salty said:
Doc, what good is the constitution, if laws can be passed that violate it, or even worse, administrative rules can be created to bypass it? That's the whole point of the constitution.

I'm not arguing that there's a problem with ramp checks. I'm only saying that an administrative rule NEVER trumps the constituion.
Click to expand...
What part of the Constitution are you talking about? Quote it.
 
so....what are all these stops going to fix? It ain't gonna help the accident rate.

Of course we all know it's the paper that makes us safer.....right Doc? Lol ;)
 
Salty said:
I'm sorry you don't feel bad about unjust rules that violate the constitution.
Click to expand...

Please show me the court case where 49USC 44709 was challenged and struck down as unconstitutional. I'll wait.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Please show me the court case where 49USC 44709 was challenged and struck down as unconstitutional. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
Yes, a person has not been murdered until the court determines it. Yet they are still dead and the court ain't bringing them back.
 
Unsubscribing. There's no point in arguing with a statist that has proven to be impervious to any rational argument, and I don't even have a problem with ramp checks in the first place.
 
Salty said:
Yes, a person has not been murdered until the court determines it. Yet they are still dead and the court ain't bringing them back.
Click to expand...

Using an inane point to attempt to justify your position on a subject you know little about? o_O
 
Doc Holliday said:
Please show me the court case where 49USC 44709 was challenged and struck down as unconstitutional. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
"Because it hasn't been challenged, it must be ok" is ridiculous. Nor does the law doesn't explain what the OP is asking.
 
tawood said:
"Because it hasn't been challenged, it must be ok" is ridiculous. Nor does the law doesn't explain what the OP is asking.
Click to expand...

So you ignore laws you disagree?

Back to the OP, he asked why he could be ramp checked by the FAA. I answered citing the law that permits it.

I'm trying to answer the OP's question based on facts and supplied a reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top