REFLECTOR: Special Report: AOPA demands answers on aircraft searches: Customs Pilot Perspective

[Scott Baker]

On 6/24/2013 11:07 PM, Mark Magee wrote:
> Mark,
> All is well.  I'm in the process of making al my FAA paperwork right 
> for the airlines. I just finished my 737 type rating and finally 
> picked up my ATP.
> As far as the ramp check stuff, I really don't have too much insight. 
>  The topic probably would be better served if we could sit down and 
> chat.  The biggest concern is ensuring that 4th amendment rights are 
> not infringed upon, and balancing that with law enforcement.  There is 
> a constant flow of drugs moving from the west coast and we are having 
> a fair amount of luck intercepting it.  The problem arises when we 
> talk with a law abiding general aviator who does NOT care for the 
> government (and Texas is loaded with the Anti-govt type), and they do 
> not care to try to understand the battle we are in. It is a VERY thin 
> line, and a line that sometimes is wrongfully crossed.  Bottom line, 
> if you don't want someone to look at your plane, you have the right to 
> say no.  Law Enforcement Officials have the job of developing both 
> reasonable suspicion and probable cause.  Once that is developed, 
> there are a whole different set of rules that apply. _With that being 
> said, understand that flying is a privilege, and if you are witnessed 
> exercising that privilege, LEO's (any city, state, federal) have the 
> right/obligation to verify that you are properly certified_ to operate 
> the aircraft, and that the aircraft is properly registered with the 
> FAA (standard ramp check stuff).  The guys in the office constantly go 
> round and round since many of us exercise our general aviation 
> privileges as well (perfect time to interject the fact that I bought a 
> DELETED last year).  If you are approached on the ramp, be prepared to 
> show your FAA docs and medical certificate.  If they ask to look at 
> your airplane and you just don't feel like playing nice, say no.  Your 
> freedom of movement should not be hindered if reasonable suspicion has 
> yet to be determined.  Disclaimer..... It's a thin line that the LEO 
> walks.  We all have our individual threshold for reasonable suspicion 
> (with very little guidance....by design).  Probable cause, on the 
> other hand, is fairly well established by various case laws (typically 
> when judges start issuing warrants).  If RS/PC is established, the LEO 
> can then continue with their "investigative detention" (restrict 
> movement etc.) to satisfy their concerns.  RS is NOT enough to force 
> their way into your personal property, but PC is (a dog that alerts 
> satisfies PC by case law).  This rabbit hole continues on and on.  It 
> is fantastic hangar talk that I would be happy to participate in (in 
> uniform or not).  I hope this helps. Keep in touch and let me know if 
> you need anymore info (or different explanation).
>
> NAME DELETED

"... LEO's have the right/obligation to verify that you are properly 
certified"

Say again?!  What kind of logic is that?  Who among us does not take 
exception to this kind of thinking, i.e. 'guilty until proven innocent'?
The actions and tactics use by law enforcement - as expressed in recent 
headlines - is just wrong and is also a major (in a big way) waste of 
money and law enforcement resources.
I have had the 'pleasure' of interacting with local police, sheriff's 
department, fire department, FAA FSDO, and NTSB types at Sebastian (FL) 
airport.
Eight out of Ten were judged in my opinion as being arrogant, power 
wielding, unintelligent regarding the topic at hand, and more concerned 
about their appearing to be 'in control' of things than in making good 
common sense observations and decisions.  As an exception to the rule, I 
give credit to the FBI as being professional, courteous, and only 
organization in the bunch that really knows what the _ell they were doing.

When similar and incredibly stupid actions are added to the mix by local 
law enforcement officers - it is easy to adopt a disdainful 
guilt-by-association attitude towards every 'public servant' who wears a 
uniform - especially those who wear a badge and gun.
 From where I stand, these agencies have earned their reputation, and I 
believe are too arrogant to understand that the people they 'serve' do 
not like it.
Federal (TSA, CBP, more) and local law enforcement have a long way to go 
to regain the trust they have lost to law abiding American citizens.  
The question is, "Do they care?"

Stepping off soap box now.
Scott B


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20130625/3132ed6e/attachment.html>