DHS claims pilots have no right to refuse search!

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. 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.
Click to expand...

Agree. As it should be. As Ive said time and time again, a consent to a search is never required. Ever. Period. You can consent if you like, but why? And this is coming from me, an LEO. You have 4th Amendment rights, don't give them up. Unless it's one of the 4th Amendment exceptions (extended border, at the border, functional border equivalent), then the standard 4th protections apply. They are your rights to have, or to give up if you so choose. And as you state eloquently above, there are respectful....yet still solid....methods of communicating the above. Well stated.
 
MikeD said:
Agree. As it should be. As Ive said time and time again, a consent to a search is never required. Ever. Period. You can consent if you like, but why? And this is coming from me, an LEO. You have 4th Amendment rights, don't give them up. Unless it's one of the 4th Amendment exceptions (extended border, at the border, functional border equivalent), then the standard 4th protections apply.
Click to expand...


Unless you are riding with the Gulley. In that case, an exigent circumstance always exists!
 
MikeD said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did, and I appreciate you laying it all out, but my problem is that THEY are the ones calling the shots. Plain view probable cause is one thing. If there is clearly something visual that would lead an officer to believe there is illegal content in the vehicle, than they obviously get their probable cause right there, my problem is when dogs come into play. If someone comes up to me with a dog after I refuse a search, how the heck do I know what the dogs signal is? What's to stop abuse of a policy?

Oh look, the dog sat, or the dog stuck his tongue out, or some other motion; well now is that a positive hit? And how can I prove if it is and isn't? I hate using TV shows as examples, but even on shows like border wars, I've seen a few CBP officers just walk around a vehicle with a dog sniffing and say "yeah, the dog is hinting" and the car is then torn apart because that now gives them probably cause. I understand that those take place at a border crossing, and we're not talking about those at the moment, but my point, and question stands, how do I know it's not an abuse of policy, and what's to prevent that?

If I were pulled over by a trooper, and refused a search and he brought a dog out, even if there's nothing at all in my car, what do you think the odds are that they'll find a way to make the dog hit?
We're all human, and I believe if the officer is ticked off by my refusal, he'll do everything he can to get into my vehicle. I don't know many people who would risk being arrested, and then fight in court with a lawyer to prove that the officers abused a policy, (possible using a fake dog hit to search), rather than just consent to the search on the spot.
 
Mark815 said:
If I were pulled over by a trooper, and refused a search and he brought a dog out, even if there's nothing at all in my car, what do you think the odds are that they'll find a way to make the dog hit?
We're all human, and I believe if the officer is ticked off by my refusal, he'll do everything he can to get into my vehicle. I don't know many people who would risk being arrested, and then fight in court with a lawyer to prove that the officers abused a policy, (possible using a fake dog hit to search), rather than just consent to the search on the spot.
Click to expand...


People consent to searches because they don't know any better, that's why the police ask. If they had reason to be searching, they wouldn't ask. That said, if you refuse a search, it takes time to call a dog. Which is a waste if the police are unlikely to find anything. So odds are, they'll let you go and move on to someone else.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Which is a waste if the police are unlikely to find anything. So odds are, they'll let you go and move on to someone else.
Click to expand...

Except in the case of ignorant DHS "agents" who seem to have no problem letting people sit around for 2+hours on a ramp waiting to fly in extra aircraft, extra Suburbans full of guys dressed and armed like some teenage tacticool mallcop's wet dream, and drug dogs.

I'd still like to know WHY we even have a DHS, every task they are "assigned" already has another agency dedicated to it... what a bunch of redundant nonsense. When you have enough bored agents running around the country in helicopters and assault gear with no clear target, what else would we expect to happen?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
People consent to searches because they don't know any better, that's why the police ask. If they had reason to be searching, they wouldn't ask. That said, if you refuse a search, it takes time to call a dog. Which is a waste if the police are unlikely to find anything. So odds are, they'll let you go and move on to someone else.
Click to expand...

They don't always have a reason to ask, sometimes they just ask because as you stated, people don't know any better. If someone wants to open up their car to a free search, and potentially get caught with something, why not ask? Also, calling in the dog is not a waste if the officer thinks he may find something, even if he has no hard evidence.That's where I believe things get messy. If they bring a dog out in a situation where you're being "difficult" in their eyes by saying no, I definitely believe that some officers will make sure that dog hits positively so they can search your car.

rframe said:
I'd still like to know WHY we even have a DHS, every task they are "assigned" already has another agency dedicated to it...
Click to expand...

I'd love to know as well. Honest question, what is their power and jurisdiction? I see DHS Tahoes with blue lights on them near many airports. Are they allowed to pull me over? Where can they pull me over? If they're just driving down the middle of I-95, miles from anything, can they still throw the blues on and stop me? I mean they have guns and badges. Who do they report to? Does local law enforcement report to them? Or vice-versa? Can they cross county, city and state lines?

Re-reading my responses, I sound completely anti LEO, but I'm actually not. I've always wanted to do police work, but it's macho attitude, or police officers that abuse their power that get me really upset.
 
Mark815 said:
I did, and I appreciate you laying it all out, but my problem is that THEY are the ones calling the shots. Plain view probable cause is one thing. If there is clearly something visual that would lead an officer to believe there is illegal content in the vehicle, than they obviously get their probable cause right there, my problem is when dogs come into play. If someone comes up to me with a dog after I refuse a search, how the heck do I know what the dogs signal is? What's to stop abuse of a policy?

Oh look, the dog sat, or the dog stuck his tongue out, or some other motion; well now is that a positive hit? And how can I prove if it is and isn't? I hate using TV shows as examples, but even on shows like border wars, I've seen a few CBP officers just walk around a vehicle with a dog sniffing and say "yeah, the dog is hinting" and the car is then torn apart because that now gives them probably cause. I understand that those take place at a border crossing, and we're not talking about those at the moment, but my point, and question stands, how do I know it's not an abuse of policy, and what's to prevent that?

If I were pulled over by a trooper, and refused a search and he brought a dog out, even if there's nothing at all in my car, what do you think the odds are that they'll find a way to make the dog hit?
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you regarding dogs. While they're a great tool and asset for many things, you are correct that it's just too subjective of a reasoning for allowing a search. While it's been found legal as a basis for a search, I've always taken personal issue with this for that very reason. As opposed to something more solid, such as looking into a vehicle's window and voila, there's a burlap sack of marijuana, or a body part, or whatever.

We're all human, and I believe if the officer is ticked off by my refusal, he'll do everything he can to get into my vehicle. I don't know many people who would risk being arrested, and then fight in court with a lawyer to prove that the officers abused a policy, (possible using a fake dog hit to search), rather than just consent to the search on the spot.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is a potential too, and Im hoping that the training received regarding violations of civil rights being a very bad thing for the officer, were it to be discovered, would be a deterrent to things like this.

What I've found in my time regards trying to find PC, is that 9 times out of 10, you kind of know if the person you're dealing with is a bad person or is up to something. And often, you don't even really need to be a cop to have that feeling or hunch. And while a feeling or hunch isn't any kind of PC, it is one of things that will get you to look a little bit closer at the person or situation to see if there is PC. Oftentimes, there are things the bad person overlooks, such as a something illegal left in plain view, often within reach of himself and that can be PC for a search. And often too, the bad guy covers his tracks well and there's nothing there to gain PC with for a search or further investigation, and it ends there and you let him go. Those are just how the dice roll sometimes.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
People consent to searches because they don't know any better, that's why the police ask. If they had reason to be searching, they wouldn't ask. That said, if you refuse a search, it takes time to call a dog. Which is a waste if the police are unlikely to find anything. So odds are, they'll let you go and move on to someone else.
Click to expand...

Plus, if the police really want to get a warrant to search your vehicle during a traffic stop (assuming no consent search), you can only be detained on scene for a "reasonable amount of time it would take to obtain a warrant", which is generally accepted as the time it would take to have written you a ticket. Since a warrant is going to take far longer than that to arrive; if the PC isn't readily there for a search, then there's really nothing there or whatever is there is so thin, it isn't worth the time, as you mention.
 
rframe said:
Except in the case of ignorant DHS "agents" who seem to have no problem letting people sit around for 2+hours on a ramp waiting to fly in extra aircraft, extra Suburbans full of guys dressed and armed like some teenage tacticool mallcop's wet dream, and drug dogs.

I'd still like to know WHY we even have a DHS, every task they are "assigned" already has another agency dedicated to it... what a bunch of redundant nonsense. When you have enough bored agents running around the country in helicopters and assault gear with no clear target, what else would we expect to happen?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd like to know why too. DHS...the biggest federal agency we have.....was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11; created in order to make the public "feel safe". It took various federal agencies that were operating under different umbrellas at the time [Border Patrol under DOJ, Coast Guard under DOT, etc, etc] and mashed them together to where they don't even work together very well, even though they're all now under the same umbrella. There's bureaucracy for you.
 
Mark815 said:
They don't always have a reason to ask, sometimes they just ask because as you stated, people don't know any better. If someone wants to open up their car to a free search, and potentially get caught with something, why not ask? Also, calling in the dog is not a waste if the officer thinks he may find something, even if he has no hard evidence.That's where I believe things get messy. If they bring a dog out in a situation where you're being "difficult" in their eyes by saying no, I definitely believe that some officers will make sure that dog hits positively so they can search your car.
Click to expand...

As Ive said before, it's one's own responsibility to know their own rights. And as I've always said before too, I don't necessarily like consent searches, or even asking for them. To me, its laziness: either PC is there...either out in the open, or easily found with minimal digging.....or it isn't. If it is and it's articulable, then go with it. If it isn't, then the stop is over and everyone goes on their way. The few times Ive asked for consent is when there's a hunch that the guy is a bad guy, but as Ive said, that isn't PC. So you ask, then the idiot consents, then drugs/ illegal weapons / illegal contraband being smuggled / humans being smuggled is found, and you now have an arrest and instant PC to further search. Asking the guy "if you knew you had all of this [illegal stuff], WHY did you consent to a search? Why didn't you just tell me no??" Answer: "I didn't know I could."; or "I thought it would make me look suspicious." Sheesh.......:)

I'd love to know as well. Honest question, what is their power and jurisdiction? I see DHS Tahoes with blue lights on them near many airports. Are they allowed to pull me over? Where can they pull me over? If they're just driving down the middle of I-95, miles from anything, can they still throw the blues on and stop me? I mean they have guns and badges. Who do they report to? Does local law enforcement report to them? Or vice-versa? Can they cross county, city and state lines?

Re-reading my responses, I sound completely anti LEO, but I'm actually not. I've always wanted to do police work, but it's macho attitude, or police officers that abuse their power that get me really upset.
Click to expand...

Depends where they are and what agency they're with, in regards to what they do and scope of practice. As Feds though, they're country-wide jurisdiction for their job; no city/state lines mean anything. Generally speaking, they're enforcing any federal laws, with a specific focus on what their particular agency does. And in an emergency, they are LEOs that can do what's necesssary to assist other law enforcement. Since they're not peace officers, they don't enforce state/city laws, so you aren't going to get the FBI pulling you over for speeding, for example. But, they have made traffic stops of serious state crimes such as suspected DUIs.....erratic/unsafe driving, etc....if only as a public safety measure for all motorists. In that case, and if proven to be an impaired driver, then local/county/state officers are called to handle it.
 
MikeD said:
As Ive said before, it's one's own responsibility to know their own rights. And as I've always said before too, I don't necessarily like consent searches, or even asking for them. To me, its laziness: either PC is there...either out in the open, or easily found with minimal digging.....or it isn't. If it is and it's articulable, then go with it. If it isn't, then the stop is over and everyone goes on their way. The few times Ive asked for consent is when there's a hunch that the guy is a bad guy, but as Ive said, that isn't PC. So you ask, then the idiot consents, then drugs/ illegal weapons / illegal contraband being smuggled / humans being smuggled is found, and you now have an arrest and instant PC to further search. Asking the guy "if you knew you had all of this [illegal stuff], WHY did you consent to a search? Why didn't you just tell me no??" Answer: "I didn't know I could."; or "I thought it would make me look suspicious." Sheesh.......:)
Click to expand...


My roommate was a cop, I was curious and asked what most people get arrested for. He said, by far, outstanding warrants or parole violations. So - as you say, being a bad guy to begin with, and/or being stupid, is an easy way to end up being searched.
 
 
I'll trade you guys

My country took 48% of my money to give to people who refuse to work, and entitle the lazy.
 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
But you have "free" health care!
Click to expand...
Exactly

The people who work for a living, sustaining our meager economy pay handsomely for our health care.

People who suck the life off the government tit however, it is free for them.

Don't get me wrong, I think helping the truly needy is important, and will gladly pay tax to do so. Problem is 75% of the people drawing the free ride are just scammers and players
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top