Maybe the aircraft he's flying has a history of some type. Maybe his business partner does. They seemed to be interested in the partner. I don't know.
Mid-Air Intercept by ICE
- Thread starter GX
- Start date
Maybe the aircraft he's flying has a history of some type. Maybe his business partner does. They seemed to be interested in the partner. I don't know.
Thanks for the reply. My take was that they were inordinately interested in my business partner. A LOT of questions about him. They told me that if everything "checked out" they'd give me enough to figure out what was going on.... They didn't. How about I pass you their info via PM (I REALLY want to put them on blast publicly, but maybe I have more respect for them than they do me) and you can ask them yourself and let me know?
Questions will help close the gap, I'm sure. It was 2 hours of circle jerking, so I'm sure there are relevant (to you) parts missing. I did not get the N-Number of the King Air, unfortunately. I did get the name of an agent and the pilot, and a cell number.
Pay2
Oberkellner
I had a similar situation occur a few years ago when a friend and I were flying a C206 from San Francisco to Nashville. Planned on making it as far as Taos, NM the first day. Like you, we were not on a VFR flight plan but were on flight following. When we landed in Taos we were "greated" by the local sherrif who asked us to put our bags on the ground and our hands on our heads. After asking what was going on we were patted down and no answer was given to our question. After the pat down 10 other officers arrived as well as a k-9 unit. At that point we were told that DHS had recieved tips about our aircraft and that they'd like to search the aircraft and our belongings. We had no objection to their request so they spent the next 1 1/2 hours searching through bags and seat pockets. During the search my friend and I were individually questioned with questions similar to those you were asked. Our documents were also requested and provided. The officers had done their homework and had details about our two fuel stops earlier in the day as well as the maintenance that had been performed on the aircraft prior to our departure from San Fransisco. Once the questioning was over and belongings searched they asked if they could remove panels to have a closer look. We asked to see their search warrant and said they'd need an A&P to remove and replace panels for them. At this point they informed us that we were free to go but that they'd need our contact info. Up to this point we had been very cooperative but now were getting annoyed. They were just going to drive off and leave us on a ramp after hours with our belonging spread out around the aircraft. We told them that we'd like them to repack our aircraft and find us a good place to eat. The sherrif must have had a little compassion because he was the only one to stay and help put the stuff back in the plane. We didn't give anyone our contact info. We told them that we'd be there until 8 AM the next day and if they got a search warrant we'd be happy to give them access to the plane. We got some pissed off looks, but they just left. Without probable cause or a search warrant they had no right to further waste our time and they knew it.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
Honestly, "DHS recieved tips about the aircraft" shouldn't be a good enough answer for someone to allow LEOs to search the bags, they'd need a warrant or a better answer if they wanted to do that.
Everytime I hear about this, my blood boils. There was a case were police beat the hell out of someone in Maryland, they lied about it in thtier police report, the survailence footage at the college disapperaed and the kid was going to be hosed. But there was enough people around with cell phones around that showed this kid was innocent, and the beating the kid got wasn't justified and got him off. If a LEO can record you without your consent, you should be able to do the exact same.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
Exactly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Not if someone willingly consents to a search. It's on the person who consents. Don't like it? Don't consent then. How hard is that to understand? Seriously....
Ive said it before and I'll say it again, you should know your own rights. LEOs are not required to advise you of your Consitutional rights when it comes to search. But because Im a nice guy, I will.....yet again:
1. You can consent to a request for a search, or you can refuse.
2. If you consent, you can even detail where you are consenting to have searched.....all, or parts.
3. You can revoke consent at anytime during the search, but NOT after something incriminating or contraband has been discovered.
Know your rights. They are yours to have (even though the two major political parties in the USA would love to take them away piece by piece).
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I would not have, nor do I recommend, consenting to a search when the reason for the search or de facto detainment is "DHS received some tips." Had it been me, I would have probably said "What tips?" and if they couldn't be more specific, it'd be search warrant time.
BeReal
Well-Known Member
That was my first thought.
Also, why did the dog hit on a wing? I would think aviation fuel would mask any scent of drugs. And what smuggler would put drugs in a wing fuel tank?
Probably no one.
BeReal
Well-Known Member
A similar thing happened a few blocks from where I used to live. A guy gets invited by a friend to a cop party. He starts to feel uneasy because he's getting nasty looks because he's mixed race and leaves after a short time. A bunch of cops follow him out accusing him of stealing a badge (falsely). They beat and kick him numerous times and then stick Bic pens into both ears until they bleed. They deny it for months until a female cop who witnessed it broke the silence. She got threats and dead animals in her locker until the investigation went public and the officers responsible were arrested. That's some sadistic stuff.
Where the hell does he live? 1956 Mississippi?
flyingbum
Needz Re-Edjamacayshun
And just think, these are the people who are supposed to "protect" us.
I don't need protection, I need a effin JOB!
BeReal
Well-Known Member
I hear you. I came to a point that it seemed hopeless but finally got the call I was hoping for. Good news travels slowly. Hang in there, man. The economy is picking up.
Qutch
Question everything
http://flexyourrights.org/ is another organization that attempts to educate the public in the rules Mike is explaining. I've never had any sort of problem on a traffic stop myself, nevertheless, their training video collection is sort of entertaining for anyone to watch. I think Mike is correct. We should know this material, even if we are not expecting to need it.
A short sample of one of many FlexYourRights.org training videos
.
Correct. Hence my Disclaimer. Some states do in fact have laws preventing citizens from taping police (like Illinois), and some states prevent audio taping at all under wiretap laws. However, police in some areas will frequently try to convince citizens that it is illegal to tape them, when it isn't. It's entertaining to watch a lawyer armed with a video camera take those arguments apart in filmed confrontations. I'd link to some, but the language of frustrated persons trying unsuccesfully to push/B.S. around a lawyer can get a little raunchy.
(Google Video: Lady Lawyer Educates Bensalem (PA) Cop)
.
inigo88
Composite-lover
Check out the TV show "Border Wars" sometime on NatGeo. Many many shots of the CBP guys using hand held density meters (which bombard the object with low intensity gamma radiation and observe the results... yikes!) on truck tires, fuel tanks, etc. There was one where a tanker truck full of toxic chemicals had to be emptied by a hazmat team because there were drugs inside, so an airplane fuel tank is pretty small time by comparison.
Regarding the line of questioning, I would recommend googling "Law Enforcement Field Interview" as well as Stop and Identify Statues to get a more complete picture of the process. Some states have passed laws forcing you to provide your name and/or ID, some haven't (mine hasn't). A Field Interview (FI) is basically a temporary detainment an officer can make if they have enough reasonable suspicion, but not enough PC for an arrest. The policies I've read (google) regarding FI's state that compliance with them is voluntary (information provided goes into a records management database that can be looked at later if officers have future contact with you). However they also stress that they can be a powerful tool for ruling out a potential suspect. For example say you're walking home at night and happen to be walking by a bank with a robbery hold-up alarm going off that officers are responding to (wrong place at the wrong time). The above happened to me back in high school, and because I was the only pedestrian in the immediate area I was instantly a bank robbery suspect - but by explaining who I was and where I was going in the FI I was ruled out as a suspect very quickly and sent on my way. By putting myself in their shoes (I'm very interested in law enforcement anyway) and understanding the procedures they were following, I didn't feel like my rights were violated by answering a few questions and clearing up their misunderstanding.
The above is just a counter-example to those of you guys saying "I'd tell them to pound sand." It is certainly your right to tell them to pound sand, but if by acting belligerently and uncooperatively you some how give them more probable cause for an arrest, you could make things a lot more difficult for yourself... Thus it's not always the best course of action. Another thing to consider is the "Resisting Arrest" law, which in my state covers a lot more than just resisting arrest:
CA PC 148(a)(1) said:
This can be used to charge someone with obstructing or delaying an officer in the course of performing their investigation, although I've never heard of it being sole PC for an arrest and I'm not sure how applicable it would be here. Usually it's added on for things like providing a false name, destroying or trying to get rid of evidence, etc. For example, the dummy who thinks that if they throw their drugs out the window into the bushes while they're getting pulled over, that will somehow make everything okay...
MikeD said:
All the police officers I know always stress the same thing: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! It certainly wasn't in MikeD's best interest from an officer safety standpoint to educate that person in the car full of illegal guns about consent searches, and yet here he is telling you guys anyway - and that shows a lot of integrity. And I see it pretty much across the board from all my friends in law enforcement.
While the dog hitting on the wing was very clever, I think there IS one minor detail being missed here. That would be the composite wings. 
Is someone REALLY going to destroy the composite wing, fill it with dope, patch it, and re-paint it to appearing new to smuggle dope in? IIRC fiberglass can't mate with composite, so that goes out the window, and getting rolls of composite is, well, likely quite difficult.
AND.... I was asked why I flew direct from SDL to DZB w/o a stop, remember? That would mean putting fuel in the wings. They were full. Topped off when I departed, and I told them that. I landed AT minimums.
So much for the smuggling dope in wings theory.
Is someone REALLY going to destroy the composite wing, fill it with dope, patch it, and re-paint it to appearing new to smuggle dope in? IIRC fiberglass can't mate with composite, so that goes out the window, and getting rolls of composite is, well, likely quite difficult. AND.... I was asked why I flew direct from SDL to DZB w/o a stop, remember? That would mean putting fuel in the wings. They were full. Topped off when I departed, and I told them that. I landed AT minimums.
So much for the smuggling dope in wings theory.