Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #58144
From: <Sky2high@aol.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: beware, you may be searched!
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:39:42 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Jeff,
 
It was nice talking with you while you were at KARR.
 
I agree that the conduct of CBP is outside the law and the specific activities at your airport are oppressive.
 
My response was meant to help us normal pilots to understand our rights (don't have to allow search) and the obligations to produce certain documents either when requested or in a reasonable time frame.  Again, the police would need a drug dog present when they stopped you - they cannot detain you in order to order up the big sniff.  BTW, I recently read that such dogs are only about 45% accurate and respond more to the mood of the handler than the check they are to be doing.
 
I would say that Aero-news needs to look into CBP more deeply than the fluff piece that was done recently.
 
Scott
 
In a message dated 4/26/2011 7:49:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time, vtailjeff@aol.com writes:
Scott,

The point I have been making is two fold. One, the CBP is lying to local police agencies to get them out to the airport to apprehend, arrest, and detain pilots. How would a Federal CBP officer in California know a Lancair pilot taking off from an airport in Phoenix had a fugitive onboard? Answer -- he didn't-- he just made it up to justify an unlawful search to the local police in St. Louis. Three pilots at my airport in two years, including placement of a camera at our airport to watch us guilty pilots coming and going. Lying is not probable cause.

Two, the CFRs cited below do not constitute a legal requirement on to detain anyone. In 40 years of flying I have never seen anyone ask for any of these documents. Now all of a sudden CBP is using these documents to justify detaining pilots until they can get a drug dog to search your aircraft. CBP believes GA aircraft are a security threat to America.

Btw I am at KARR this week at Luminair.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 25, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

Jeff, et al,
 
Examining the AMOC document and aside from obvious errors:
 
Items 1-4 are fairly correct.
 
5. The clear intention of Title 14 section 61.51 1 Presentation of Required Documents has to be taken in context - While the pilot must respond to a "reasonable request" to produce a pilot's logbook, this section further and specifically states that the logbook of a student, sport or recreational pilot must be carried in the aircraft.  There is no such specificity for other pilot licenses.
 
6. The claim made here is correctly clarified later in that Title 14 section 91.417(c) only requires a 337 be carried if it refers to a fuel tank installed in the cockpit or baggage area.
 
***Caveat*** is more interesting. 

Reasonable detention is open to interpretation.  It has been held that detaining someone stopped for a traffic violation until drug dogs could be obtained was not reasonable………..  This is probably why is says "Canine Unit on the scene."

 

Clarification of warrant/probable cause:

 

The Supreme Court has created a special exception to the warrant requirement for a mobile conveyance. Mobile conveyances are cars, trucks, boats, motorcycles, airplanes, riding lawn mowers, golf carts, baby carriages, etc.

There are three requirements that have to be met in order to search a vehicle.

First, the vehicle has to be in a public place. The mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement doesn’t apply if a car is in a garage or on the curtilage of a home. Hangar?

Second, the vehicle has to be readily mobile. This means the vehicle must appear to be operational to a reasonable person; however, it’s not necessary that the vehicle be moving or even occupied.

Third, there has to be probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be located in the vehicle.

If all three of those requirements are met the court will excuse the requirement that the officer obtain a warrant.

The mobile conveyance exception excuses the warrant requirement; It doesn’t excuse the probable cause requirement.

 

Good Luck!

 

Scott Krueger

=
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster