X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-Junk-Score: 1 [X] X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X] Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4953459 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:14:10 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.52; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so5969fxm.25 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:13:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=c5so+45uuTLqriTuVFkpbfza0Yn+juIFEn0RlFo0acs=; b=Wgac8gNvjWDzlwecIhxouLRtNH/V/xT1PkCkFL30l2700h4DY9R52P2R0J+Tx46zHZ IACWjbKGizrojoDM9gezh281Lw8LQ0BYBM0tTwF1Q/Vx7aH766URWLJMZz0ihsWe/ej2 JC7Y+Z9qqPG129Mcy0L3dogR3fdD7vy0mwUPA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=IkZUMkPW5UpBFgwoJXNpLyLV++bhnhH8Nt+8HP8ffeqsA79CmRpe/sN0qw6vcU/Axx Uv4GxaEFihfaG600QOUnP3My8b56oVwUyY0CGmLEAegp/zCHCAOPcj1ihibtlsyhTG2O dVEIaey6yLEDoSqlr3NZFdn7fJ++L4qIfqNoc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.54.213 with SMTP id r21mr261665fag.54.1303409610845; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.102.141 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:13:30 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Fwd: [LML] Re: beware, you may be searched! From: Mark Steitle To: Chuck Imken , WILLIAM SCHWOEBLE , "Bobby J. Hughes" , Phil Cline , Rotary motors in aircraft , LYNN BRIGGS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517473594d9ed6f04a171b2ee --001517473594d9ed6f04a171b2ee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Interesting thread from the Lancair list regarding the feds and their methods of tracking GA flights. The initial story, with a full description of what started all this is in the latest issue of LOBO newsletter at http://www.lancairowners.com/newsletter/LOBONewsJan2011.pdf Mark ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Sletten Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM Subject: [LML] Re: beware, you may be searched! To: lml@lancaironline.net William, I would agree completely with your assessment right up to the part where th= e agent made the thinly-veiled threats regarding the vehicle search. Given that neither the pilot flying the aircraft nor the passenger matched the description of the suspect they were looking for, why ask to search the plane? That was clearly a fishing trip, and in my mind completely unnecessary once it became apparent neither of the plane=92s occupants were of interest in t= he matter at hand. Agents often make the implication that you will somehow become of greater interest and increase suspicion on yourself if you refuse to allow a search= , or that =93it will go easier on you=94 if you cooperate. These are, in fact= , lies. The truth is your status as a suspect in the eyes of the law does not change if you exercise your constitutionally-protected rights. Indeed, proo= f that police used your choice to exercise your rights as evidence of wrongdoing is grounds for dismissal in court. Further, aside from making his/her job easier, cooperation with an investigator will change nothing when it comes time to pursue charges if the authorities discover contraband= . The accuracy of drug-sniffing dogs is coming more and more under fire in th= e courts of late, despite a recent (2005) Supreme Court ruling that an alert by a detector dog constitutes probable cause. Unfortunately, it seems the court either ignored or was not made aware of factual studies and logic in its ruling. The reality is some dogs are better than others, and even the best dog with the most sensitive nose is only as good as his handler. There is a complete lack of standardization and/or testing when it comes to dog and handler training, which means dogs and handlers trained by one agency might be much better than those supplied by another. Additionally, there is mounting evidence that the dogs (surprise!) are strongly influenced by thei= r handlers=92 demeanor and behavior. In other words, if the handler is sure there are drugs present, the chance of an alert by the dog greatly increases. There are many other problems with using a detector dog alert as probable cause which you can read about here. In fact, this investigation by the Chicago Tribuneof data supplied by suburban Chicago police departments pegs detector dogs=92 accuracy below 45%. Why am I so concerned about this issue? Because the =93probable cause=94 generated by a detector dog alert can cause a great deal of trouble even if a subsequent search turns up no evidence of illegal activity. In at least one case a citizen=92s property=97including $17,500 found during the detector dog-trig= gered search=97was confiscated under Indiana state forfeiture law based entirely = on a detector dog alert. Forfeiture law is a natural outgrowth of the 1970 RIC= O (Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organization) statues, which was a law created to allow government to go after mob profits. It eventually led to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which lowered the bar for civi= l forfeiture. To seize property, the government only has to show probable cause to believe that it was connected to drug activity, which is the same standard cops use to obtain search warrants. It was intended to motivate la= w enforcement to seek civil forfeiture, and it=92s worked spectacularly. Inde= ed, many departments count on forfeiture as part of their funding. The problem for us ordinary folk is even if the owner of seized property isn=92t charge= d with a crime, the property can still be held until the owner =93proves=94 t= he property wasn=92t used as part of criminal drug activity. Obviously, this can lead to all kinds of problems when we=92re talking abou= t expensive assets like an airplane, which is why tactics such as threats to bring out detector dogs are as infuriating as they are successful in acquiring suspect cooperation. Many, including me obviously, believe these tactics, in conjunction with civil asset forfeiture laws, give law enforcement way more power that it should have when it comes to civil rights. If it were me, and I had the time =96 since I know I have nothing to hide = =96 I would force their hand, make them bring out the dogs and go through the motions. The only way we=92ll ever get law enforcement to change the way th= e courts view the use animals in this regard is to generate enough data proving the inaccuracy of detector dogs. Only such data can lead to a rulin= g that the use of detector dogs impinges on Constitutional rights. There is a good write up on this in the last LOBO News which you can downlo= ad and read here = . *-- Mark* *From:* William Wilson [mailto:fluffysheap@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:05 AM *To:* lml@lancaironline.net *Subject:* Re: [LML] beware, you may be searched! Seems pretty standard to me. They checked out a tip that proved to be bogus. I don't see any rights violations here or anything out of the ordinary. The main lesson IMO is that, while there are plenty of cops who abuse power= , for the most part if you behave in a civilized manner and realize they are just trying to do their job, most of them will treat you fairly. That seem= s to be what happened here. On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Bob Rickard wrote: Fellow LML=92ers It seems inevitable that the govt will search you at some point. Just some info on what happened to me yesterday, you can hopefully use this to react appropriately for your situation. This is the third incident just at our little airport in Missouri of this happening=85. --001517473594d9ed6f04a171b2ee Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Interesting thread from the Lancair list regarding the feds and their metho= ds of tracking GA flights. =A0The initial story, with a full description of= what started all this is in the latest issue of LOBO newsletter at http://www= .lancairowners.com/newsletter/LOBONewsJan2011.pdf

Mark

---------- Forwarded = message ----------
From: Mark Sletten = <mwsletten@gmai= l.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: beware, you may b= e searched!
To: lml@lancaironli= ne.net


William,

= =A0

I would agree completely with your assessment r= ight up to the part where the agent made the thinly-veiled threats regardin= g the vehicle search. Given that neither the pilot flying the aircraft nor = the passenger matched the description of the suspect they were looking for,= why ask to search the plane?

=A0

That was clearly a fishi= ng trip, and in my mind completely unnecessary once it became apparent neit= her of the plane=92s occupants were of interest in the matter at hand.

=A0

Agents often make the im= plication that you will somehow become of greater interest and increase sus= picion on yourself if you refuse to allow a search, or that =93it will go e= asier on you=94 if you cooperate. These are, in fact, lies. The truth is yo= ur status as a suspect in the eyes of the law does not change if you exerci= se your constitutionally-protected rights. Indeed, proof that police used y= our choice to exercise your rights as evidence of wrongdoing is grounds for= dismissal in court. Further, aside from making his/her job easier, coopera= tion with an investigator will change nothing when it comes time to pursue = charges if the authorities discover contraband.

=A0

The accuracy of drug-sni= ffing dogs is coming more and more under fire in the courts of late, despit= e a recent (2005) Supreme Court ruling that an alert by a detector dog cons= titutes probable cause. Unfortunately, it seems the court either ignored or= was not made aware of factual studies and logic in its ruling. The reality= is some dogs are better than others, and even the best dog with the most s= ensitive nose is only as good as his handler. There is a complete lack of s= tandardization and/or testing when it comes to dog and handler training, wh= ich means dogs and handlers trained by one agency might be much better than= those supplied by another. Additionally, there is mounting evidence that t= he dogs (surprise!) are strongly influenced by their han= dlers=92 demeanor and behavior. In other words, if the handler is sure = there are drugs present, the chance of an alert by the dog greatly increase= s.

=A0

There are many other pro= blems with using a detector dog alert as probable cause which you can read about here. =A0In fact, this investigation by the Chicago= Tribune of data supplied by suburban Chicago police departments pegs d= etector dogs=92 accuracy below 45%.

=A0

Why am I so concerned ab= out this issue? Because the =93probable cause=94 generated by a detector do= g alert can cause a great deal of trouble even if a subsequent search turns= up no evidence of illegal activity. In at least one case a citizen=92s property=97including $17,500 found during the detector dog-= triggered search=97was confiscated under Indiana state forfeiture law based= entirely on a detector dog alert. Forfeiture law is a natural outgrowth of= the 1970 RICO (Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organization) statues= , which was a law created to allow government to go after mob profits. It e= ventually led to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which lowered= the bar for civil forfeiture. To seize property, the government only has t= o show probable cause to believe that it was connected to drug activity, wh= ich is the same standard cops use to obtain search warrants. It was intende= d to motivate law enforcement to seek civil forfeiture, and it=92s worked s= pectacularly. Indeed, many departments count on forfeiture as part of their= funding. The problem for us ordinary folk is even if the owner of seized p= roperty isn=92t charged with a crime, the property can still be held until = the owner =93proves=94 the property wasn=92t used as part of criminal drug = activity.

=A0

Obviously, this can lead= to all kinds of problems when we=92re talking about expensive assets like = an airplane, which is why tactics such as threats to bring out detector dog= s are as infuriating as they are successful in acquiring suspect cooperatio= n. Many, including me obviously, believe these tactics, in conjunction with= civil asset forfeiture laws, give law enforcement way more power that it s= hould have when it comes to civil rights.

If it were me, and I had t= he time =96 since I know I have nothing to hide =96 I would force their han= d, make them bring out the dogs and go through the motions. The only way we= =92ll ever get law enforcement to change the way the courts view the use an= imals in this regard is to generate enough data proving the inaccuracy of d= etector dogs. Only such data can lead to a ruling that the use of detector = dogs impinges on Constitutional rights.

=A0

There is a good write up= on this in the last LOBO News which you can download and re= ad here.

=A0

-- Mark

=A0

From: William Wilson [mailto:fluffysheap@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:05 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
<= b>Subject: Re: [LML] beware, you may be searched!

=A0

Seems pretty s= tandard to me.=A0 They checked out a tip that proved to be bogus.=A0 I don&= #39;t see any rights violations here or anything out of the ordinary.
The main lesson IMO is that, while there are plenty of cops who abuse pow= er, for the most part if you behave in a civilized manner and realize they = are just trying to do their job, most of them will treat you fairly.=A0 Tha= t seems to be what happened here.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Bob Rickard &l= t;r.rickard@rc= ginc-us.com> wrote:

Fellow LML= =92ers

=A0

It seems inevitable th= at the govt will search you at some point.=A0 Just some info on what happen= ed to me yesterday, you can hopefully use this to react appropriately for y= our situation.=A0 This is the third incident just at our little airport in = Missouri of this happening=85.

=A0


--001517473594d9ed6f04a171b2ee--