tawood
En-Route
Ignoring? Where did I say I was ignoring? He asked how it was constitutional...quoting a law says nothing about constitutionality.
Why are ramp checks allowed when random traffic stops are not?
- Thread starter Huckster79
- Start date
danhagan
En-Route
IBTL
Doc Holliday
En-Route
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
You said "...what good is the constitution..." and "...That's the whole point of the constitution..." and "...an administrative rule NEVER trumps the constituion." What part of the constitution are you talking about? What in the Constitution supports what you are saying?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
How is a law declared unconstitutional?
LesGawlik
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 985
- Display Name
Display name:
Good Guy
So was the Fugitive Slave Act.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
By the Supreme Court. They do that sometimes.
bflynn
Final Approach
Ramp checks are probably more equivalent to traffic check points than a traffic stop. Police can stop every car on a road and ask to the see that relevant documents are available. That's essentially what a ramp check is doing.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Getting back to the original post. I just wanted to ask, how many of us have been ramp checked? I have been flying since 1983 and have never been checked or heard of anyone I know ever having been either. And I have been based at some of the bigger airports around Boston.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I doubt if it was. There are many search and seizure cases that have set the precedent so I doubt any one would even try. If so, the Court would probably just say no, we ain't hearing this and oh by the way, your standing to argue before the Court is revoked.
LesGawlik
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 985
- Display Name
Display name:
Good Guy
Whether it is on the books now is immaterial. The issue was whether a law passed by Congress and signed by the President can be unconstitutional. It can. You must have missed that.Ok, didn't know that law was still on the books.
Thanks for the update.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I haven't. I know someone who did. He was at some kind of event with lotsa planes that flew in and the Feds was hanging out there. They probably gotta do at least one or their boss will jump in their sheet for just having a good time and not doing any work while they're there.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
No, you've missed the point. If you feel 49USC 44709 is unconstitutional, challenge it and have it thrown out. Have you asked AOPA or EAA legal if they are willing to fight this?
Rushie
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,017
- Display Name
Display name:
Rushie
It would be a lost cause because of post #2.
schmookeeg
En-Route
Why on earth is there heat on this subject?
I would expect any challenge to "ramp check authority" to be weighed against "public benefit" just as a matter of common sense -- nobody wants you flying some unairworthy contraption above them, and nobody wants you doing that without proper credentials.
So if someone DID challenge this because "muh freedoms", and even if you won and got ramp check authority stricken down -- there would certainly come a stronger and better law authorizing ramp checks to replace it, and quickly.
I don't know what we're debating here. "Ramp checks hurt my feelings" ? This is a really weird hill to die on. I'd love to de-fang the FAA in myriad and assorted ways, but "ramp checks" seems low on the target list to me.
$0.02
I would expect any challenge to "ramp check authority" to be weighed against "public benefit" just as a matter of common sense -- nobody wants you flying some unairworthy contraption above them, and nobody wants you doing that without proper credentials.
So if someone DID challenge this because "muh freedoms", and even if you won and got ramp check authority stricken down -- there would certainly come a stronger and better law authorizing ramp checks to replace it, and quickly.
I don't know what we're debating here. "Ramp checks hurt my feelings" ? This is a really weird hill to die on. I'd love to de-fang the FAA in myriad and assorted ways, but "ramp checks" seems low on the target list to me.
$0.02
Doc Holliday
En-Route
More importantly, I don't believe you could find a lawyer willing to file such a lawsuit and risk being thrown out of court as baseless.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Why on earth is there heat on this subject?
I would expect any challenge to "ramp check authority" to be weighed against "public benefit" just as a matter of common sense -- nobody wants you flying some unairworthy contraption above them, and nobody wants you doing that without proper credentials.
So if someone DID challenge this because "muh freedoms", and even if you won and got ramp check authority stricken down -- there would certainly come a stronger and better law authorizing ramp checks to replace it, and quickly.
I don't know what we're debating here. "Ramp checks hurt my feelings" ? This is a really weird hill to die on. I'd love to de-fang the FAA in myriad and assorted ways, but "ramp checks" seems low on the target list to me.
$0.02
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
Come on guys....Doc needs his job. lol
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I have been ramp checked three times, once doing aerial survey, once doing flight instruction, and once doing Part 135 charter. All three were at small, rural, midwestern airports.
I've also been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in Colorado.
Oh, and tracked and followed by a US Customs Citation to our landing in Roswell, NM. We were in a C-320, doing aerial survey.
LesGawlik
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 985
- Display Name
Display name:
Good Guy
Stop trolling. My post simply addressed whether a law passed by Congress could be unconstitutional. Please show where I ever commented on the constitutionality of ramp checks. Take your time... It's an open book test.
Never been ramp checked flying GA. I’ve had a few feds in the jumpseat though.
I guess that you are just a lucky guy!
Doc Holliday
En-Route
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I heard this story once, may be true, may not but I believe it. The fuzz set up a checkpoint somewhere, don't remember exactly what it was for. A judge said they can't be just stopping people randomly. So the fuzz put up a sign that said in so many words, checkpoint ahead. They put it where there was a place to turn around and go back. They pulled over and checked anyone who did. The judge was cool with that as probable cause that the driver was obviously trying to conceal something.
No one suggested it was or that it would be or not be upheld. To the contrary, if anything, my post suggested that if it were challenged, it would likely be upheld upheld as a reasonable administrative intrusion. But I think that even the FAA recognizes constitutional limits to 49 USC §44709. It's no big surprise that ASIs are instructed
An inspector must not open or board any aircraft without the knowledge and consent of the crew or owner/operator. Some operators may prefer to have a company representative present to answer questions.
You may call explanations like that "lawyer deflection." I call it "avoiding simplistic thinking" (when I'm feeling charitable).
Last edited:
LesGawlik
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 985
- Display Name
Display name:
Good Guy
I knew you couldn't answer intelligently.
Go ahead. Please show where I challenged the legality of ramp checks. You can't.
I haven't been but I have friends who have and I watched one from afar. Most are no big deal but you sometimes get that ASI.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Could it be because the FAA is not Law Enforcement?
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Or I look suspicious!
None of these encounters were unpleasant. The customs stop was surprising, but they acted pretty embarrassed and apologetic when they figured out what we were really doing. Then we all had pizza supplied by someone, either them or the FBO.
Deelee
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2019
- Messages
- 1,784
- Display Name
Display name:
Deelee
Was wondering the same thing. I have never been, nor known any GA pilot who has been. I wonder if there are stats somewhere that show numbers of ramp-checks for GA vs 135 vs 121 ops...
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
FWIW it became meaningless by The Emancipation Proclamation January 1, 1863. It got officially repealed and taken off the books by Congress June 28, 1865. The whole thing became a nothing December 18, 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
It can depend a lot on the particular FSDO.
I personally have never been ramp checked, but know many who have. When I was based at MYF in San Diego, ramp checks were pretty regular. FAA would literally walk across the street to the FBO where several flying clubs were based and do ramp checks.
Also, many ramp checks happen at air shows.
FYI: Technically the ramp check is considered surveillance and not a search. I've been ramp checked while working on aircraft for the side job and at the day job. Also have been involved with groups that assisted with violations that resulted from a ramp check. Never experienced a time where constitutional rights were ever brought into mix even at the administrative level over a ramp check. The policy procedures for a ramp check are straight forward and explain the reasons:
https://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v06 surveillance/chapter 01/06_001_004_chg_0a.htm
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
It is constitutional for law enforcement to have random traffic check points for sobriety, equipment and driver licenses. The courts have held legal random audits by tax agencies. That is under criminal law where you may be deprived of your liberty if your are found in violation of the law.
Ramp checks are civil law. The FAA inspector has no authority to arrest and the courts do not hold the same standard for depriving you of money that they do your liberty.
Last edited:
Again, if you're approached on the ramp, you've not been seized unless the inspector won't let you depart. I believe they are supposed to NOT impede you when doing these. As I stated, even with the police, they're free to come up and start asking you things if you're already stopped somewhere. The constitutionality of this has been determined by the courts to not violate the fourth amendment protections.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
Usually on TV by those with no clue.
SoCal RV Flyer
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2016
- Messages
- 3,037
- Display Name
Display name:
SoCal RV Flyer
I wonder how it's allowed that anyone can look up an N number and find out a bunch of information on the plane & the pilot. I can't do that with the tag number from an auto ...
Because...aviation.
Brought to you by the same folks who allow search without probable cause every time you fly commercial.
I kind of agree that a lot of this stuff really isn’t constitutional whether or not some lower court has made a dodgy argument that it is.
However, given how rare ramp checks are and how minor they’re reported to be it’s way down on the list of things I’m concerned about.
Now civil asset forfeiture on the other hand…. people behind that ought to be up on charges.
However, given how rare ramp checks are and how minor they’re reported to be it’s way down on the list of things I’m concerned about.
Now civil asset forfeiture on the other hand…. people behind that ought to be up on charges.
Because nothing makes government databases of property illegal. By the way, I can do to that with a tag number of an auto, it's just a service that costs money as opposed to the FAA free access.I wonder how it's allowed that anyone can look up an N number and find out a bunch of information on the plane & the pilot. I can't do that with the tag number from an auto ...
Information on the individual is a rougher time. The FAA daily violated the Privacy Act and their exemption from it by disseminating information about pilots without authorization.