http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013 ... -searches/

Hope this sparks some interest!!

I do not consent to searches
June 16, 2013 by Dave Hook 15 Comments
When did American citizens give up Fourth Amendment rights just because they became pilots?

Over the past year, there have been numerous reports of searches of private aircraft without warrants. The accounts described by the pilots also suggest that insufficient cause was given by the law enforcement agencies conducting the searches. This is a disturbing trend.

My wife and I enjoy watching “Law and Order.” It’s interesting to see the direct link between the search for supporting evidence against someone who has committed a crime and how the prosecution makes use of that evidence in a court of law.

What’s even more interesting is how investigating officials get people to voluntarily waive their rights against search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause. It’s just entertainment television, right?

Here are some lines you might hear when a member of the law enforcement community wants to search your aircraft without a warrant or clearly articulated probable cause:

“I’d like to search your aircraft.”
“Mind if I look inside?”
“If you have nothing to hide, then this shouldn’t take more than a minute.”
“The last guy didn’t make a fuss. Are we going to have trouble with you?”
“A law-abiding citizen such as you should have nothing to fear.”
“Okay, we won’t search your airplane. But we want our dog to sniff outside and around your airplane, okay?”
“We are conducting a ramp check. Please open up your aircraft.”
Here are some responses you may wish to consider:

“Do you have a warrant to search my aircraft?” If they have a properly executed warrant, stand aside.
“Am I under arrest? If so, what are the charges?”
“I want to leave. Am I being detained or am I free to go?”
“If this is a ramp check, then who is the FAA inspector?”
Remember, there is a big difference in Part 91 operations between a ramp check conducted by an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) of the FAA and an inspection of your airman’s certificate by law enforcement.

The authority for the ASI comes from FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 6, Chapter 1, Section 4. The authority for inspection of an airman’s licenses, medical certificates, authorizations, and photo identification by law enforcement comes from 14 CFR Part 61.3 (l). The ASI should present an identification card, called a FAA Form 110A.

If the person saying they are performing a ramp check doesn’t show it, you should ask to see the FAA Form 110A to confirm that you are undergoing a ramp check by a FAA inspector.

Finally, the most important response to give above all others:

“I DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES.”

I am not a lawyer — and probably most of you are not lawyers, either. But remember this: Anonymous tips and hearsay do not constitute probable cause.

Why is that distinction important? Probable cause is the legal doctrine that allows law enforcement officials to conduct searches without a warrant. A warrantless search conducted without probable cause creates a basis for suppression of any evidence found during the search, sometimes called the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

This is a situation in which you may be wise to have a lawyer you can call or avail yourself of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s Pilot Protection Services.

For those concerned about their ethnicity and potential targeting, you should know about United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975).

The U.S. Supreme Court determined that it was unlawful for law enforcement to stop a vehicle because, in this case, the operator appeared to be of Mexican descent. This case law established the requirement for law enforcement to have more than the basis of ethnicity to detain someone. It further required the law enforcement official to be able to clearly articulate those facts used to create a basis for reasonable suspicion. [My thanks to Chase Snodgrass, Presidio County Airports manager and retired U.S. Border Patrol agent, for sharing this reminder of fairness and equality under the law]

There are plenty of bad guys that law enforcement — federal, state, or local— should be pursuing, not law-abiding pilots conducting lawful flights within domestic airspace.

Unless you are clearing U.S. Customs after having arrived from outside of the United States, there is no authority bestowed upon law enforcement that allows for a warrantless search without probable cause. But when you cross the border into the United States, the Customs agent does not require probable cause to conduct a search of you, your passengers, or your aircraft.

Also important to know: Consenting to allowing a trained dog to sniff around your aircraft is just as much a search as if you opened the aircraft door and invited them in. The dogs use their noses like humans use their eyes to peer into your aircraft.

Also, do not hesitate in saying, “I do not consent to searches.” Hesitation has been used as a basis for implying consent. You do not want to voluntarily create a conversation with law enforcement in this situation.

Do not try to be polite in conveying your message by watering down the message with gentle words and euphemisms. Stand your ground. Look an agent squarely in the eye and say, “I do not consent to searches.”

If they continue and search your aircraft, then call your lawyer at the first opportunity. Continue to remind the searchers that you object to the search, but be polite and non-aggressive about it.

You don’t stop being a law-abiding citizen by standing up for your rights under the U.S. Constitution. You don’t have to be nasty or mean in how you give your message. Be polite, firm, and don’t waiver. ou are the same law-abiding citizen after you stand on your rights as you were before. They made the decision to challenge you.

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. FREE for the asking, I have created 3-inch by 2-inch stickers that state the following: “No warrant? The pilot and owner of this aircraft do not consent to searches.”

Those interested in receiving these free stickers have only to send me an email at [email protected] with your mailing address, and I will mail you two stickers. The stickers are printed in black and white in English. They are intended for exterior application in plain view of the primary entry/exit and cargo doors of your aircraft, but place them where you want. And remember: “I do not consent to searches.”

Please share:

I believe that GT is absolutely correct from a legal standpoint. And yes, our rights need to be asserted.

However, there is another angle on this that I believe deserves to be considered by all of us as well.

GA aircraft and pilots are being attacked from every direction these days. We are frequently painted as wackos, or cowboys, or rich fat cats who think they are better than everyone else. What happens if we add another complaint to that list?

Let's say the Border Patrol or INS or whoever goes to Congress and says "A large percentage of those fat cat airplane owners don't want to let us do our job, or they turn up their noses at our agents at the border, when all we're trying to do is prevent terrorists and dope smugglers. Senator Clinton, this is making it so that our jobs out there in the hot sun are harder, because of those rich, arrogant, NRA members and their leaded fuel burning toys. Can't you and Barney and Harry just invent some way to legislate them out of existence dear Hillary? Our UNION would ve very grateful come election time..."

Presto... one more voting bloc and PAC against GA.

Speaking only for myself, if I'm NOT running drugs, WMD, or transporting illegal immigrants... I'm looking at the Border Patrol as being the good guys unless proven otherwise. If they have a good and non-confrontational experience with me, and if I give them less reason to suspect me and my little airplane, then I have a chance of that Border Patrol agent telling his superior "Nahhh... most of those little airplane guys are OK, there's only a small percentage that are trying to do anything illegal."

Again, I am FIRMLY AGAINST illegal or unreasonable searches. But it may now be reasonable in this day and age, that we should be going a little further in helping the people who are there to prevent someone from br inging in a suitcase nuke or bio-weapon using a Cherokee.

Actually, one potential idea is to video the search by onboard "dash cam". That way, anyone who puts incriminating evidence in your airplane in order to "frame" you will not get away with it.

Very civilized take on things EZFlap.

If you send any official correspondence to your congressional reps, please spell "amendment" correctly. It is an unfortunate fact that poor literacy and spelling pose bias against your otherwise intelligent points.

Zzz wrote:If you send any official correspondence to your congressional reps, please spell "amendment" correctly. It is an unfortunate fact that poor literacy and spelling pose bias against your otherwise intelligent points.

I thought this would be the fisrt post!!

M6RV6 wrote:

Zzz wrote:If you send any official correspondence to your congressional reps, please spell "amendment" correctly. It is an unfortunate fact that poor literacy and spelling pose bias against your otherwise intelligent points.

I thought this would be the fisrt post!!

Sory Z, U dnt ned t spel rite two gt the point a cros.

M6RV6 wrote:

Zzz wrote:If you send any official correspondence to your congressional reps, please spell "amendment" correctly. It is an unfortunate fact that poor literacy and spelling pose bias against your otherwise intelligent points.

I thought this would be the fisrt post!!

Your thread needs an amendment.

EZFlap wrote:....But it may now be reasonable in this day and age, that we should be going a little further in helping the people who are there to prevent someone from br inging in a suitcase nuke or bio-weapon using a Cherokee.

This seems like an "I have nothing to hide...so why not search me..." sort of argument.

I prefer the "I have nothing to hide...show me why you want to search me, and the authority to do so" argument. It isn't being impolite to recognize 'inalienable' rights, and the moment the exercise of rights becomes 'impolite', it is a sure bet they have already been rendered meaningless for a while. If you deny yourself inalienable rights when it seems "reasonable", you will never be able to affirm them when there is a clear enforcement overreach.

It's exactly like those who don't care about Constitutional gun rights saying it is fine to regulate the 2nd Amendment into meaninglessness.

Or the SCOTUS decision yesterday to reaffirm the fact that the right to avoid self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment in the American adversarial justice system is too inconvenient, and that the 'inalienable' 5th Amendment must be explicitly invoked for it to be available:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/17/read-the-supreme-court-rules-prosecutors-can-use-a-suspects-silence-as-evidence-of-guilt/

Or this obvious terrorist who was arrested for exercising a 1st Amendment right to wear a 2nd amendment t-shirt:
http://news.yahoo.com/14-old-kid-arrested-over-pro-nra-shirt-071819724.html

Terrorism has been around going back many generations. There is nothing in place now that more effectively keeps persons from driving Cherokees or Fords or Bayliners chocked full of bioweapons/explosives/dope/whatever across the border, and using them on us, no matter how much money the TSA or Homeland Security (I hate that word...might as well be "Fatherland") tells you need to pay them to keep your children from getting killed. The reason we aren't seeing this happen is because there aren't any more people wanting to do this now than ever before. There is no compelling public evidence to show that these measures will have an impact on our safety commensurate with the sacrifices to our inalienable rights they demand.

Saying we have to give up rights to address imaginary or less important threats like 'terrorism' is an open declaration that our inalienable rights apparently destroy our American way of life, as if terrorism is a threat to our safety greater than WW2, drunk driving, or even lightning. It's downright unreflective of our past, and even narcissistic.

I believe vehicle searches are settled law. I believe planes are vehicles, just like bicycles, motorcycles, motor homes, and boats are vehicles. IMHO, the government is violating the law in determining airplanes to be special and separate from well-established law regarding vehicle searches.

If you get stopped by law enforcement, and you want to, you can remain silent. It's not impertinent, it's not rude, and if a person thinks it is, then that meek person's inalienable rights are already running out the door.

lesuther wrote:Terrorism has been around going back many generations. There is nothing in place now that more effectively keeps persons from driving Cherokees or Fords or Bayliners chocked full of bioweapons/explosives/dope/whatever across the border, and using them on us, no matter how much money the TSA or Homeland Security (I hate that word...might as well be "Fatherland") tells you need to pay them to keep your children from getting killed. The reason we aren't seeing this happen is because there aren't any more people wanting to do this now than ever before. There is no compelling public evidence to show that these measures will have an impact on our safety commensurate with the sacrifices to our inalienable rights they demand.

why does everyone seem to miss this point? there really aren't very many people who want to shoot or blow up people at a marathon/post office/restaraunt/high school, and no amount of money spent or phone calls or emails spied on will stop the few who are intent on doing it.

The odds of you or me being detained in the US while not crossing the border in very very low.

In this day and age if you tell LEO no search with out a warrant you may, MAY! find yourself cuffed sitting in the back of a patrol car for hours or even taken to jail for the night. If you have nothing illegal and LEO looks, you will probably be on your way in short order.

I have a friend who is a LEO. He says if they want to look or ticket they can always find a reason.

So it really boils down to this. Do you want to make a stand on principle and possibly take hours to resolve or open the doors and bags and be gone in 30 minutes?

Under the right circumstance I will most definitely take a stand. Other times I will let it slide and open up.

If you are crossing the border back into the US the degree of difficulty can go way up. CBP, TSA, DHS can be a major problem.

G'Day

M6RV6 wrote:“If this is a ramp check, then who is the FAA inspector?”
Remember, there is a big difference in Part 91 operations between a ramp check conducted by an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) of the FAA and an inspection of your airman’s certificate by law enforcement.

The authority for the ASI comes from FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 6, Chapter 1, Section 4. The authority for inspection of an airman’s licenses, medical certificates, authorizations, and photo identification by law enforcement comes from 14 CFR Part 61.3 (l). The ASI should present an identification card, called a FAA Form 110A.

If the person saying they are performing a ramp check doesn’t show it, you should ask to see the FAA Form 110A to confirm that you are undergoing a ramp check by a FAA inspector.

First thing you need to do is to actually READ FAR 61.3, which in pertinent part, reads:

(l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part must present it and their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a request from:

(1) The Administrator;

(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;

(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or

(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.

Note that ANY Federal, State or Local law enforcement officer may, under this regulation, conduct a ramp check. The regulation does not distinguish between FAA employees (referenced here under the authority of the Administrator) and other "federal, state and local law enforcement officers".

That does NOT suggest that you should EVER consent to a warrantless search, by the way. I concur with that part. But, give some attitude to a local county mountie, informing them that they don't have the authority to ramp check you and you are likely to come to grief.

I've had students ramp checked by Customs and Border Protection pilots who were refueling a helicopter. Frankly, it was a good experience for the students....nothing out of the ordinary, the CBP guys simply asked to look at the paperwork.

If they want to search your airplane, I agree....tell them not without a search warrant.

Don't get yourself jammed up because you didn't actually READ the regs, though.

MTV

A mans principles mean nothing until he pays the price for having them.

OregonMaule wrote:I have a friend who is a LEO. He says if they want to look or ticket they can always find a reason.

So it really boils down to this. Do you want to make a stand on principle and possibly take hours to resolve or open the doors and bags and be gone in 30 minutes?
G'Day

Problem is, it's not over in 30 minutes. I do not want to live with the expectation that I can be detained for no reason at any time and that I'll just have to suffer the inconvenience and the indignity of it . . . because the LEO can make sh_t up and there are no consequences. Sounds like life behind the Iron Curtain.

There is a right to sue for damages for an illegal search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents. The kinds of detentions described in the Fallows article in the Atlantic might make good cases under Bivens. There may be immediate no financial consequences for the offending LEOs and bureaucrats, but if a lawsuit torches their careers and costs them their pensions, it would be a good start, IMHO.

CAVU

JHenderson wrote:A mans principles mean nothing until he pays the price for having them.

Yep... it's our DUTY to resist tyranny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

Random checkpoints for sobriety have been affirmed by the supreme court as long as they meet some fairly basic rules that the checkpoints in that video seem likely to pass.

Does anyone know of any case law on the more general subject of random checkpoints? Or should people just hope that the SCOTUS will think that alcohol (as opposed to illegal immigrants, terrorists or invasive species) is special enough that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to it, but does apply to those other things?

Resisting tyranny by jack-booted stormtroopers and unlawful search by snarling dogs is all well and good.

But don't we also want to resist tyranny by an evil army of news reporters and legions of small-minded bureucrats, and the loss of our personal freedoms like flying ?

We also have a similar duty to protect our country and our way of life. This means showing support for OUR jack-booted stormtroopers going overseas into battle, and it also means we need to support the people and dogs who are desperately trying to keep drugs and suitcase nukes and extremist agents provocateur outside our borders.

Like a lot of things, this issue is not quite as simple now as it was in 1776.

rw2 wrote:Does anyone know of any case law on the more general subject of random checkpoints?

http://voices.yahoo.com/requirements-sobriety-checkpoints-96573.html

They're not secret, and not really random. It has to be part of a program in order to pass Constitutional muster.

Yeah, see I read that list and wondered the opposite. Bit by bit:

(1) Sobriety checkpoints cannot be set up at random. Instead, they must be one facet in a departmental program designed to deter intoxication while behind the wheel.

Right, the immigration and customs (I&C) checkpoints are not random and are only one facet of the larger effort. SCOTUS could easily say that they pass this one.

(2) The local district attorney's office must be aware of the sobriety checkpoint and must be willing to offer its support in the prosecution of DUI/DWI offenders.

This is almost certainly true in the case of the I&C checkpoints. I've read of people being prosecuted.

(3) The police officers who set up the sobriety checkpoint must have a specific pattern for stopping cars and must not deviate from that pattern. For example, they must agree to stop every fourth car, and stick to the fourth-car pattern.

They seem to be stopping *every* car. So this should be ok with SCOTUS.

(4) The decision to implement a sobriety checkpoint must not be made out of thin air, but should be a measure in response to a demand. For example, if there have been three drunk driving accidents outside of a neighborhood, the officers would have a need to set up a sobriety checkpoint.

This seems, IMO, to be the strongest case for convincing the SCOTUS that these stops are different than sobriety. OTOH, if I&C and show that a bunch of drugs or illegal immigrants are using a particular road, maybe not.

(5) Police officers who decide to set up a sobriety checkpoint must adequately inform drivers that the checkpoint will be in place. While checkpoints are for the good of society, they can also deter drivers who need to reach certain destinations.

I don't know about this one. My town near Chicago is notorious for sobriety checkpoints, but I've still never been aware of them other than seeing them the night they are setup.

(6) As drivers approach the sobriety checkpoint, they should be able to see that the police are present. Usually, this is accomplished by starting the flashing light bars on the tops of police cruisers.

This is absolutely clear at I&C checkpoints.

(7) If the police intend to send drivers to a test site for chemical testing, there must be an easy and fast route from the sobriety checkpoint to the test site.

Doesn't apply to I&C checkpoints.

(8) Police officers must be able to successfully manage the sobriety checkpoint without unreasonably halting the flow of traffic. They must use standardized procedures and follow the proper protocol for investigation.

The videos I've seen of I&C checkpoints show them being very efficient and not significantly slowing the flow of traffic.

(9) The public must be notified aggressively and well in advance of any sobriety checkpoint so that drivers can avoid them if necessary.

This one was phrased differently on the other list I saw "Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect."

Seems redundant to point 5. I would guess that the I&C ones are better known than the sobriety ones.

Hey..... I've got an idea

How many of you have mice issues in your hangar?? Let's put them spring mouse traps in the luggage compartments of your plane before you take off. If you get asked to be searched, I'd say....... "Go right ahead", with a smirk on my face and stand to the side and lesson to the traps go off on the officers fingers. "Oops, I'm sorry officers. I've been having mice issues in my plane and hangar. Forgot about those traps being in the plane"

Just remember yourself where you put the traps

I know........ Dumb idea. Sounds good though

EZFlap wrote:I believe that GT is absolutely correct from a legal standpoint. And yes, our rights need to be asserted.

However, there is another angle on this that I believe deserves to be considered by all of us as well.

GA aircraft and pilots are being attacked from every direction these days. We are frequently painted as wackos, or cowboys, or rich fat cats who think they are better than everyone else. What happens if we add another complaint to that list?

Let's say the Border Patrol or INS or whoever goes to Congress and says "A large percentage of those fat cat airplane owners don't want to let us do our job, or they turn up their noses at our agents at the border, when all we're trying to do is prevent terrorists and dope smugglers. Senator Clinton, this is making it so that our jobs out there in the hot sun are harder, because of those rich, arrogant, NRA members and their leaded fuel burning toys. Can't you and Barney and Harry just invent some way to legislate them out of existence dear Hillary? Our UNION would ve very grateful come election time..."

Presto... one more voting bloc and PAC against GA.

Speaking only for myself, if I'm NOT running drugs, WMD, or transporting illegal immigrants... I'm looking at the Border Patrol as being the good guys unless proven otherwise. If they have a good and non-confrontational experience with me, and if I give them less reason to suspect me and my little airplane, then I have a chance of that Border Patrol agent telling his superior "Nahhh... most of those little airplane guys are OK, there's only a small percentage that are trying to do anything illegal."

Again, I am FIRMLY AGAINST illegal or unreasonable searches. But it may now be reasonable in this day and age, that we should be going a little further in helping the people who are there to prevent someone from br inging in a suitcase nuke or bio-weapon using a Cherokee.

Actually, one potential idea is to video the search by onboard "dash cam". That way, anyone who puts incriminating evidence in your airplane in order to "frame" you will not get away with it.

The searches that have been talked about had nothing to do with border crossing's. That is an entirely different matter.