DHS claims pilots have no right to refuse search!

Derg said:
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape on the article. The devil is in the (legal) details.

Besides, Obama was going to pay my cellphone bill but that never came to fruition either.

THANKS OBAMA, not.
Click to expand...
Ooh, Obama and the NSA be comIn' to yo house!!!!
 
MikeD said:
I do believe them to be unbelievable. Because this has been a hot topic for sometime now, and there's been alot of training on what is legal and what is not legal. So, sorry if some nebulous "anonymous source" doesn't get me up in arms that the New World Order is here and doing the work right now. Because either I and the guys I work with in my office are completely out of the loop of the "inner circle", or this just isn't happening as stated, or the rag Flying magazine is trying to boost its ratings.
Click to expand...

Welcome to my world.
 
MikeD said:
And it doesn't trump the Constitution. Which is why I'd like to know the rest of the story here. Because something seriously isn't adding up.

I also hope that people didn't lose their ability for critical thinking when they became a pilot, and believe everything that Flying magazine prints, without double checking it or even seeing if it makes any legal sense.
Click to expand...

Either way... if (or when) it happens... I'm sure that whoever the pilot is will file a lawsuit and the issue will be cleared up by whatever level of courts it reaches. Until the issue is brought before the courts, I would be skeptical as well.
 
MikeD said:
I would very much love to find out the "rest of the story" with regards to this guys' claims; because the average person has no idea how much legal training we've not only had to initially go through, but how much recurrent legal training, especially after various incidents occur and the like.....what could've been done differently/better/worse; it really does generate training that goes around the agency. And it should. Which is why Im surprised that anything like this would be claimed by someone, as I know it's specifically trained to always error on the side of caution from legal sense. Especially when it comes to things like this.

Where Im skeptical of his claims is regarding the whole "FAA umbrella" thing. What that tells me is that this guy might not be a pilot, and might not understand the difference between a ramp check, and a search; and how the FAA is involved with one, but not the other. As they're WILDLY different entities.
Click to expand...
When I went through the academy they basically told us, violate some ones civil rights and lose your job, maybe your house and every thing else if you get sued. There's not a guy I worked with who didn't take that very serious. As I'm sure it's the same where you're at. Again, I'm not a sky's falling type of guy either, in fact it's one of the only threads I've ever created on here. I'm sure a lot of people thought the guys in rampart were doing things by the book too. It's happened throughout out our history when we thought every thing was up to snuff and it took one or two whistle blowers to find out it wasn't. I mean it happens often enough they have the name for it," whistle blower", even phone hotlines dedicated to the matter. :)

I hope this is nothing but if it isn't, figure out wtf's is going on.

On side note I am for the NSA taping my phone just not my airplane. :)
 
Murdoughnut said:
Search and seizure laws skirt the Constitution when it comes to border issues - and if I remember correctly, the SCOTUS has permitted this.
Click to expand...

This isn't new, CBP has considered anything within 100 miles of the border to be fair game for searches. I had my car stopped and searched everyday when I was working near lake placid.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
This isn't new, CBP has considered anything within 100 miles of the border to be fair game for searches. I had my car stopped and searched everyday when I was working near lake placid.
Click to expand...

There's only one problem with that. Extended Border Search (the within 100 miles idea) requires some components to it. Unless there is nexus that can be proven that you came from the border with no interruptions, then a checkpoint or traffic stop cannot be considered whats known as an extension of the border. To do extended border search, this three part test has to be passed:

1. Reasonable Certainty of border nexus.
2. Reasonable Certainty of no material change
3. Reasonable Suspicion of criminal activity

And note that this is Reasonable Certainty; not Probably Cause or Reasonable Suspicion, which are lesser. Unless these are present, then a search reverts to normal 4th Amendment protections, and the limitations and protections contained therein; as it should.
 
MikeD said:
There's only one problem with that. Extended Border Search (the within 100 miles idea) requires some components to it. Unless there is nexus that can be proven that you came from the border with no interruptions, then a checkpoint or traffic stop cannot be considered whats known as an extension of the border. To do extended border search, this three part test has to be passed:

1. Reasonable Certainty of border nexus.
2. Reasonable Certainty of no material change
3. Reasonable Suspicion of criminal activity

And note that this is Reasonable Certainty; not Probably Cause or Reasonable Suspicion, which are lesser. Unless these are present, then a search reverts to normal 4th Amendment protections, and the limitations and protections contained therein; as it should.
Click to expand...
Been searched by border patrol because they said we left a area of suspected drug trafficking activity and our flight plan never crossed a international border
 
MikeD said:
There's only one problem with that. Extended Border Search (the within 100 miles idea) requires some components to it. Unless there is nexus that can be proven that you came from the border with no interruptions, then a checkpoint or traffic stop cannot be considered whats known as an extension of the border. To do extended border search, this three part test has to be passed:

1. Reasonable Certainty of border nexus.
2. Reasonable Certainty of no material change
3. Reasonable Suspicion of criminal activity

And note that this is Reasonable Certainty; not Probably Cause or Reasonable Suspicion, which are lesser. Unless these are present, then a search reverts to normal 4th Amendment protections, and the limitations and protections contained therein; as it should.
Click to expand...

I was probably in the 1% of traffic that wasn't coming from Canada, so that probably passed a reasonable suspicion test.

That checkpoint on I-87 has been there forever.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
This isn't new, CBP has considered anything within 100 miles of the border to be fair game for searches. I had my car stopped and searched everyday when I was working near lake placid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nothing to do with the woman in a sequined dress, hands tied behind her back, running mascara and gagged, but yeah, it was because you were within 100 miles of the border! :)
 
Inverted25 said:
Been searched by border patrol because they said we left a area of suspected drug trafficking activity and our flight plan never crossed a international border
Click to expand...
I'm curious of the details of the stop. Did you consent to search? Remeber LE doesn't have to say "excuse me sir do you give me consent for a warrant less search of your aircraft". They can simply ask "mind if I search your plane". If you say yes, you are giving consent to a warrant less search and any thing found is usable in court. I you said no and they searched any way. This is what I am interested in, is this really happening?
 
PositionAndHold said:
I'm curious of the details of the stop. Did you consent to search? Remeber LE doesn't have to say "excuse me sir do you give me consent for a warrant less search of your aircraft". They can simply ask "mind if I search your plane". If you say yes, you are giving consent to a warrant less search and any thing found is usable in court. I you said no and they searched any way. This is what I am interested in, is this really happening?
Click to expand...

At the 100 mile from Canada roadblock (only one I have been personally stopped at), no questions. You must open your trunk and answer. They treated it like a border crossing.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
At the 100 mile from Canada roadblock (only one I have been personally stopped at), no questions. You must open your trunk and answer. They treated it like a border crossing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if I'm 100 mi from the border, in the US, and on a road that doesn't lead directly to the border, nobody is opening my trunk or searching my car unless they have a warrant. This stuff is just way out of control. We have rights, and simply having a roadblock saying you're trying to catch criminals, doesn't mean I have to give up my right from being searched.
 
Sir, I say with all the possible respect due to you and for the important job you do, but as a matter of principle I do not consent to searches.
Click to expand...

I practice this line regularly so that I can be respectful while still making it clear that I will not be consenting to the search. I've never had to use the line for real, but am fairly confident that I'm prepared to do so if the need ever arises. If their response is that they don't need my consent, then obviously I won't be getting in their way.
 
exneophyte said:
I practice this line regularly so that I can be respectful while still making it clear that I will not be consenting to the search.
Click to expand...


If they have probable cause, then they do not need my consent.

If they need consent, then they do not have probable cause and will not be searching any property of mine.
 
Mark815 said:
I'm sorry, but if I'm 100 mi from the border, in the US, and on a road that doesn't lead directly to the border, nobody is opening my trunk or searching my car unless they have a warrant. This stuff is just way out of control. We have rights, and simply having a roadblock saying you're trying to catch criminals, doesn't mean I have to give up my right from being searched.
Click to expand...

Read my reply of what an "extended border search" requires. The requirements "test" is pretty strict to even be able to use it. My thought is that there was something else that led to the searches that didn't meet the test, such as dog hit or plain view PC or something like that. There would simply have to be, for a warrantless search. Otherwise, the search isn't legal.

Remember though, for the extended border search, so long as the three-tier test can be proven, then a search under extended border exception is legal; whether a road leads to a border or not. But as I said, that's a tough test for law enforcement to have to prove, as it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top