DHS claims pilots have no right to refuse search!

[PositionAndHold]

I'm ex-law enforcement and this boils my blood.

W.T.F.!!!!!!


From the article;
....“What they taught law enforcement officers and agents was that all aircraft can be detained since they all fall under the . . . authority of the FAA.” He continued that, “this in effect gives them complete search authority of any aircraft.”


Sorce:http://www.flyingmag.com/news/feds-say-pilots-have-no-rights

Local cops need to start detaining and searching high net worth individuals and their multi-million dollar airplanes. It'll probably get some attention then.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Search and seizure laws skirt the Constitution when it comes to border issues - and if I remember correctly, the SCOTUS has permitted this.

 

[PositionAndHold]

Search and seizure laws skirt the Constitution when it comes to border issues - and if I remember correctly, the SCOTUS has permitted this.

The problem is they're not talking about any kind of border crossing, whether its a state or foreign border. From the way I read it, I could fly from Long Beach, Ca to Fresno, Ca and be detained and the aircraft searched without warrant. The only time border is mentioned is the agency that was teaching classes. The DHS is taking the view that airplanes are under the "faa" umbrella and not subject to the same rules. If this is the case, couldn't we say the same thing about the DMV? Lets start searching every car.

 

[Maurus]

You know, one day they will run into someone with money/influence that will make this blow up in the court system. Just watch.

 

[MikeD]

I'm ex-law enforcement and this boils my blood.

W.T.F.!!!!!!


From the article;
....“What they taught law enforcement officers and agents was that all aircraft can be detained since they all fall under the . . . authority of the FAA.” He continued that, “this in effect gives them complete search authority of any aircraft.”


Sorce:http://www.flyingmag.com/news/feds-say-pilots-have-no-rights

Local cops need to start detaining and searching high net worth individuals and their multi-million dollar airplanes. It'll probably get some attention then.

Before everyone gets up in arms, that article has to be written wrong, or whover is being quoted is quoting wrong or giving BS information or opinion. Because nowhere in any training I've received or still to this day receive, is anything like that stated. And further, it's specifically prohibited.

A ramp check of documents, which is allowed under 14 CFR 61 by any law enforcement officer, is completely different from any kind of a search.

Don't always believe what you read, without fact checking first.

 

[MikeD]

The problem is they're not talking about any kind of border crossing, whether its a state or foreign border. From the way I read it, I could fly from Long Beach, Ca to Fresno, Ca and be detained and the aircraft searched without warrant. The only time border is mentioned is the agency that was teaching classes. The DHS is taking the view that airplanes are under the "faa" umbrella and not subject to the same rules. If this is the case, couldn't we say the same thing about the DMV? Lets start searching every car.

Again, re-read what I just wrote. The article is plain wrong.

 

[rframe]

100% steaming bull crap

Bend over America, take it.

 

[MikeD]

100% steaming bull crap

Bend over America, take it.

I take it you didn't bother to read anything I wrote above?

 

[MikeD]

An "anonymous source" has generated a full article in Flying magazine that Flying hasn't bothered to fact check? Nice journalism there.

That magazine has been a rag, aviation's National Enquirer, ever since Len Morgan left.

I must've missed out on that course he's describing.

 

[rframe]

I take it you didn't bother to read anything I wrote above?

Yes I did, and I'm glad you haven't been taught this Mike, I really am, but does that mean nobody else has?

Based on the steady increase in federal police activity, the completely ridiculous air stops we've seen repeatedly by DHS, and the steady decrease in the respect for basic liberties by our government, I don't find the source's statements to be unbelievable at all.

 

[MikeD]

Yes I did, and I'm glad you haven't been taught this Mike, I really am, but does that mean nobody else has?

Based on the steady increase in federal police activity, the completely ridiculous air stops we've seen repeatedly by DHS, and the steady decrease in the respect for basic liberties by our government, I don't find the source's statements to be unbelievable at all.

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.

 

[PositionAndHold]

An "anonymous source" has generated a full article in Flying magazine that Flying hasn't bothered to fact check? Nice journalism there.

That magazine has been a rag, aviation's National Enquirer, ever since Len Morgan left.

I must've missed out on that course he's describing.

Oh I understand this mike. But he's not anonymous to Flying Mag. They know his name a credentials. They chose to keep him anonymous in the article. I'm usually not one to take much of what I read on the net as fact. The problem is this is coming on the heals of some very bizarre behavior by some local/state/fed law enforcement agencies. I'm the first person to be on your side. 99% of what you say on this site I either agree with or mirrors my own experience and opinion. Maybe I reacted a little to quickly but when there's more and more coming out about these "stops" you start to wonder. Some where in the middle lies the truth kind of thing I guess.

 

[MikeD]

Oh I understand this mike. But he's not anonymous to Flying Mag. They know his name a credentials. They chose to keep him anonymous in the article. I'm usually not one to take much of what I read on the net as fact. The problem is this is coming on the heals of some very bizarre behavior by some local/state/fed law enforcement agencies. I'm the first person to be on your side. 99% of what you say on this site I either agree with or mirrors my own experience and opinion. Maybe I reacted a little to quickly but when there's more and more coming out about these "stops" you start to wonder. Some where in the middle lies the truth kind of thing I guess.

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.

 

[inigo88]

All I know is I didn't sign any 4th waivers to become a pilot, and federal law does not and should not trump the constitution.

 

[Mark815]

DHS can go....oh wait this is a family friendly forum isn't it?

 

[Murdoughnut]

You know, one day they will run into someone with money/influence that will make this blow up in the court system. Just watch.

If Inhof can get legislation through to land on top of construction workers on a closed runway, then you're probably not far off.

 

[MikeD]

All I know is I didn't sign any 4th waivers to become a pilot, and federal law does not and should not trump the constitution.

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.

 

[derg]

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.

 

[MikeD]

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.

Obama ordered Flying magazine to print that article.

I think Obama is actually the unnamed source in it.

 

[derg]

Obama ordered Flying magazine to print that article.

I think Obama is actually the unnamed source in it.

DAMMIT!

Right on Juneteenth* weekend

























*Look it up, kids.