A friend experienced this situation recently. I'm posting this as an FYI -

Was at Schafer last thursday and got ramp checked by homeland security. Four agents flew in in a gigantic black helicopter. They were very nice, or I may have been confrontational. B.S.'t for about 45 minutes and then
asked if they could do a ramp check. All went well, but you never know when big brother may show up.

...were homeland security (u.s customs and border protection out of Great Falls and oklahoma city) and as such are federal law enforcement agents, so you are obligated to show them your pilot's license if they request (I think). One agent was a tactics and standardization supervisor.
The agent that asked if he could do a ramp check was so heavily armed that it looked like it was difficult to even walk. Both were courteous and friendly, especially the heavily armed one. He asked, almost apologetically if he could do a ramp check and all five pilots agreed. He asked to see our pilot's licences and took down all of the info on them, and then asked what tail no. belonged to who. Two agents remained in the chopper while it ran for probably 45 minutes to an hour burning fuel. Our tax dollars at work. The heavily armed agent also asked if he could look inside the 206 that was there, and that pilot agreed.

Think Pops has security lined up for the Austin Fly-In this year too...



Gump

Disturbing.

blackrock wrote:

...were homeland security (u.s customs and border protection out of Great Falls and oklahoma city) and as such are federal law enforcement agents, so you are obligated to show them your pilot's license if they request (I think). One agent was a tactics and standardization supervisor.
The agent that asked if he could do a ramp check was so heavily armed that it looked like it was difficult to even walk.

You can be they wouldn't want the job if they didn't get to run around in sol-jer drag. I recall a S&R effort for an ice climber in winter near Hamilton, MT. While the local SAR LEO's were busy strapping on harnesses and guns and ammo and knives and waiting for their buddies to show up for the party at the trail head, a couple of guys from Missoula skied in the few miles, climbed up the ice falls to the climbers who had dropped their rope and were going hypothermic, and carried them out. They met the S&R guys with backup Glocks strapped to their thighs just leaving the trailhead. A Missoula reporter wrote it up. There was a furious letter to the editor from the S&R boys...not about how the climbers interfered or were rescued before they could figure out how to put their boxers on straight, but that their heroism wasn't even mentioned aside from the fact that the reporter noted they were dressed for a manhunt instead of a rescue...the letter writer indicated the many handguns were for bear protection. A Glock 9mm was found just off the trail head by the 82 year old grandmother of one of the rescue climbers the next spring.

The point being that they aren't there for any other purpose, really. My ramp checks have sometimes been in the middle of nowhere, and its usually been a couple of FAA guys in golf shirts and shorts, and no big deal aside from the chance to get a tour of a King Air on request. This new style is absurd. Apparently they need to go to great lengths to deem themselves 'serious' these days. Simply doing the simple, appreciated, and straightforward service of enforcing the law used to be enough for me.

I wouldn't have let them poke around at all in the plane if they were doing a ramp check. They never asked before in all then times I've been checked-just license, medical, registration, POH, etc., and logs if I had them (I never did, and that was fine with them). There is no upside to letting them feel entitled to poke around without a warrant.

Let's look at this from another perspective.
On radar they/somebody sees several planes converging on a typically quiet-near the border-airstrip and these guys are sent to investigate.
Personally I wouldn't want to go investigate in a golf shirt and Bermuda shorts and flip-flops.....
Would you?
And I would have to say that even though they sound like the were pretty well gunned up, they were pretty civil/amiable/respectful about the encounter, so I would have to say(IMHO) that even tho the encounter was not particularly enjoyable to the pilots (and probably not for the BP fellas either) it went pretty well overall?

Just a thought,
lc

Littlecub wrote:Let's look at this from another perspective.
On radar they/somebody sees several planes converging on a typically quiet-near the border-airstrip and these guys are sent to investigate.
Personally I wouldn't want to go investigate in a golf shirt and Bermuda shorts and flip-flops.....
Would you?

Yes.
Begin contradiction

And I would have to say that even though they sound like the were pretty well gunned up, they were pretty civil/amiable/respectful about the encounter

...end contradiction...

so I would have to say(IMHO) that even tho the encounter was not particularly enjoyable to the pilots (and probably not for the BP fellas either) it went pretty well overall?

Nope. Schaf is never really quiet. And yes, investigate is what FAA inspectors do. In golf shirts. With zero humor involved,but it is quick, painless, and stress free. You have to have AROW with you, unless they see you doing something that requires a safety inspection, which has happened to me...dead battery. No threat to use deadly force to look at my tattered papers back in the day. And I think people would have to be uniquely touched to believe a terrierist threat makes it all justified.

A good encounter would be a guy coming over to simply ask for credentials...that's all the TSA can actually do without a warrant, prob cause, or a FAA inspector credential. They would like to think they can just show up in a bubble of 4th amendment indemnity anywhere, any place, and have us believe it is all making us safer. Would it be civil/amiable to have the gun guy ask to see your fishing license? Same thing in my book. Heck- at Schafer, I fished with a warden for 15 mins while he passed through. Couldn't figure out where he was going, or how he got there, armed with nothing more obvious than a box of #16 gnats. He might have been packing, and I couldn't care less.

lesuther wrote:I wouldn't have let them poke around at all in the plane if they were doing a ramp check. They never asked before in all then times I've been checked-just license, medical, registration, POH, etc., and logs if I had them (I never did, and that was fine with them). There is no upside to letting them feel entitled to poke around without a warrant.

Amen, lesuther! However, many people are intimidated by the sudden request to look in their car, their trunk, their house, or their plane, and they unprepared with a response, so they just cave in and say yes.

My pappy was a judge, and he taught me to just politely say "No, you don't have my permission." Common police responses are "Don't you want us to eliminate you as a suspect?", "Do you have something to hide?", etc. Again say politely, "No, you don't have my permission." If you want to give an explanation, say "I value my privacy." You want to effectively communicate that they can't look in your vehicle, and you want to make certain that they can't twist your words or your demeanor into interfering with a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties.

So it appears I'm wrong.

The SCOTUS has variously affirmed that anyone living within 100 miles of an international border can be subject to a routine border search,seizure, and detention at any time without a warrant or probable cause or reasonable suspicion pursuant to a border search. That means anyone. The feds themselves feel that the law extends to all borders, not just the ones immediately bordering a foreign country...including 2/3 of the US population (100% of Florida, for example...).

So apparently those who live close to the Canada border have one less Constitutional protection to worry about. Lucky them. Thanks, GWB.

I thought it was indicated these were not FAA guys. These were BP/ICE/TSA/DHS types. Whole different critter with a whole different demeanor and purpose.

Of course your right-and I'm wrong-and we should all raise stink because our borders are being protected?

True we need balance, but maybe we can't all agree where balance is......
lc

maulewaco wrote:if your buddy gets in again.

Who is my buddy? And frankly, Canadians thronging across the border isn't exactly my idea of an apocalypse...more like the start of a decent hockey team.

Littlecub wrote:Of course your right-and I'm wrong-and we should all raise stink because our borders are being protected?

I would argue that nobody's borders are really safer from that sort of thing. They certainly don't claim exceptional success with it. They arrest more folks, catch more drugs, and generally accomplish what a few more cops at any level of law enforcement would do under similar circumstances. Why the black helicopters? Why not use the Jet A bill to pay for a sheriff or a DEA officer instead? The border patrol are simply militarized police that rarely bring anything special to the table by eliminating normal 4th amendment protections IMHO. I hear the basic argument that basic American citizens protections render us powerless to keep ourselves safe, while the deprivation of those basic rights is a mere acceptable technicality by comparison. Throw money at it, militarize, etc...with identical outcomes year after year (crickets, basically, same as before). Basically a zero return on investment.

Littlecub wrote:True we need balance, but maybe we can't all agree where balance is.

That is the problem. The balance for most people just a few decades ago seemed very different. Now, all someone has to say is "Ack! Terrierists!..." and all discussion is over.

Littlecub wrote:I thought it was indicated these were not FAA guys. These were BP/ICE/TSA types.

You are right, and I've gone off topic enough. Basically, it appears that since this wasn't the FAA, there is really nothing to complain about FAA ramp checks about. I've never been interrupted for more than 5 minutes except once. I don't think I had enough time to get my blood pressure up the first time it happened before it was all over, and since then, I know there is simply no reason to get worked up about it.

And I would have to say that even though they sound like the were pretty well gunned up, they were pretty civil/amiable/respectful about the encounter

...end contradiction...

so I would have to say(IMHO) that even tho the encounter was not particularly enjoyable to the pilots (and probably not for the BP fellas either) it went pretty well overall?

Nope. Schaf is never really quiet. And yes, investigate is what FAA inspectors do. In golf shirts. With zero humor involved,but it is quick, painless, and stress free. You have to have AROW with you, unless they see you doing something that requires a safety inspection, which has happened to me...dead battery. No threat to use deadly force to look at my tattered papers back in the day. And I think people would have to be uniquely touched to believe a terrierist threat makes it all justified.

A good encounter would be a guy coming over to simply ask for credentials...that's all the TSA can actually do without a warrant, prob cause, or a FAA inspector credential. They would like to think they can just show up in a bubble of 4th amendment indemnity anywhere, any place, and have us believe it is all making us safer. Would it be civil/amiable to have the gun guy ask to see your fishing license? Same thing in my book. Heck- at Schafer, I fished with a warden for 15 mins while he passed through. Couldn't figure out where he was going, or how he got there, armed with nothing more obvious than a box of #16 gnats. He might have been packing, and I couldn't care less.[/quote]

HERE'S the REGULATION:

From FAR 61.3:

(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.

I've been ramp checked numerous times by FAA Inspectors. Every time, they wore a suit or sport coat. Different FSDO, perhaps. They are expected to offer a "professional" appearance.

Frankly, most of the CBP pilots do hardly ANY actual law enforcement work, and many of them are furloughed airline types.

I wouldn't get too wound up over a simple ramp check. If the presence of guns on the person of law enforcement personnel offends you, you need to look at the statistics regarding assaults on LE officers, even in places like Schaefer Meadows. It happens. Those guys are required by their agency to carry firearms. You won't find very many game wardens these days who aren't armed either. Game wardens get shot too.

The poster said the encounter was polite and professional. Unexpected, perhaps, but polite and professional is EXACTLY what EVERY encounter with law enforcement should be. Just because you don't happen to like DHS (and I don't either) doesn't mean they aren't doing a job. If they do it professionally, I can beef to the agency that the job isn't necessary, but I sure shouldn't be criticizing the LE officers, who were acting within the scope of their authority, and professional.

I totally agree that NOBODY "takes a look inside" my airplane without a warrant. And, no, there's nothing in there that's illegal. I just don't permit (nor am I required to permit) fishing expeditions.....

I suspect the reason they kept the UH 60 running is they may have been afraid they wouldn't get it started again, and that would be a little embarrassing. Maybe.

MTV

Yup, you have to show them pilot credentials and photo ID.

And in case your encounter is within 100 miles of the border, they can also do what ever the heck they want, up to and including a pat down or even more, without so much as a probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or other legal search standard. The 4th & 14th Ammendments are largely moot there. This includes opening your airplane or any other 'conveyance', closed container, alimentary canals, etc. yeah, I had to look it up, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

I agree they were doing the job their superiors ordered them to do... The ironic thing is the few hours they spent at Schafer ramping a few honest pilots, a few THOUSAND illegal aliens crossed the southern border and got away scott free. In fact those that got in probably have already filed for SSA, unemployment, medicaid, food stamps, free legal and the dozens of other programs the guvmint offers illegals....

lesuther wrote:Yup, you have to show them pilot credentials and photo ID.

And in case your encounter is within 100 miles of the border, they can also do what ever the heck they want, up to and including a pat down or even more, without so much as a probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or other legal search standard. The 4th & 14th Ammendments are largely moot there. This includes opening your airplane or any other 'conveyance', closed container, alimentary canals, etc. yeah, I had to look it up, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

Well, not exactly within 100 miles of the border.....Read the information on the link: "Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the border, the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports)."

Schafer Meadows is not, by definition, an international airport, meaning one that serves as a port of entry.

MTV

except for this:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6cca213d2126e36cef1bf553f8c903e4&rgn=div8&view=text&node=8:1.0.1.2.57.0.1.1&idno=8
The feds continue to assert that reasonable means anywhere within 100 miles. The 9th Circuit Court says otherwise, yet warrantless searches are conducted regularly nearly 100 miles away for a border in other jursdictions. Wikipedia is incorrect in saying the SCOTUS has addressed this issue. The citation used by the Wikipedia author at the end of the case citation, found here
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699
is very clear that the decision did not comment on whether the 100 mile rule was rendered unconstitutional or limited in interpretation- it is famously an open issue. Just type in "ACLU border search 100 mile".

The feds assert 'reasonable' means 100 miles. Here is a summary of their own laws, from 2009. See reference 3, page 16. It uses the above citation to support their assertion, just as the Wikipedia article used the citation to claim the 100 mile rule was limited.

Typical lawyers. Typical Wikipedia.

lesuther wrote:except for this:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6cca213d2126e36cef1bf553f8c903e4&rgn=div8&view=text&node=8:1.0.1.2.57.0.1.1&idno=8
The feds continue to assert that reasonable means anywhere within 100 miles. The 9th Circuit Court says otherwise, yet warrantless searches are conducted regularly nearly 100 miles away for a border in other jursdictions. Wikipedia is incorrect in saying the SCOTUS has addressed this issue. The citation used by the Wikipedia author at the end of the case citation, found here
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699
is very clear that the decision did not comment on whether the 100 mile rule was rendered unconstitutional or limited in interpretation- it is famously an open issue. Just type in "ACLU border search 100 mile".

The feds assert 'reasonable' means 100 miles. Here is a summary of their own laws, from 2009. See reference 3, page 16. It uses the above citation to support their assertion, just as the Wikipedia article used the citation to claim the 100 mile rule was limited.

Typical lawyers. Typical Wikipedia.

Youre the one who cited Wikipedia.....till someone actually read your citation.....

MTV

mtv wrote:Youre the one who cited Wikipedia.....till someone actually read your citation.....

Perhaps it's a bit too long for some

Summary: The Feds think they have the right to conduct border searches within 100 miles of the borders. The courts are not so sure one way or the other. The Wiki article uses a court case to claim that the 100 mile authority is limited. The Feds use the identical case and the statute to assert the authority is unlimited.

They are clearly divided on this. It's a work in progress, and the Feds are showing how they feel. There was a case earlier this year, and they were given a pass as long as they used immigration as an excuse to conduct warrantless searches.

DHS..... Out bagging strips....ruining it for everybody else ;0)

Perhaps this was a training exercise for the guy in the "costume" , we may never know, but that is what it appears to be, I beleive. Unless a real threat was posed by one of the pilots, Schafer is not the place for this type of training. Schafer Meadows is the only airstrip within a wilderness in Montana. Conducting this type law enforcement training there disturbs the ambiance we all enjoy and the reason we visit these places.

To top it off, they left the chopper run for 45 minutes on the ground (for due cause, they likely would have gotten down to business right away). I'm sure the the other feds, USFS employees, enjoyed the noise and commotion delivered by their brothers in arms, not to mention those who flew long distances, at significant expense, to experience a wilderness setting. In my opinion, if they were there for any other reason than a true threat, it was really bad form for them to be there in this fashion, this type of activity without due cause reflects poorly on the agency, and most certainly the supervisor.

On the flip side, they should be commended for there professional behavior and for the job they do putting themselves in harms way to protect us when there is a true need. I thank them for the service they perform. But really, they should avoid trashing peoples vacations with implied intimidation, noise, and commotion that this type of activity brings to the public's wilderness getaways, without due cause.

Rant over, but I was just there before this happened, enjoying a nice vacation getaway with my wife; this would have really upset me had we been there at the time. I'm not any less upset to hear it happened to my friends and others.

Blackrock

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.

In the border search context, reasonable suspicion means that the facts known to the customs officer at the time of the search, combined with the officer's reasonable inferences from those facts, provides the officer with a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that the search will reveal contraband.[26] To form a basis for reasonable suspicion, a customs officer may rely on his training and prior experience, and may rely on entirely innocent factors, if the totality of the circumstances provide the officer with reasonable suspicion.

^ § 287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3), which simply provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR § 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."

Not much to argue about, and I think they can hold you for 7 days with out council, notifying anyone and you don't get your phone call. Just did not have enough time to find the part that says that!!
GT