Pilot Detained by DHS for 2 hours
#1
Pilot Detained by DHS for 2 hours
A wonderful story about how Big Brother is starting to get pretty nosy towards GA pilots that have broken no rules.
I would have definitely pooped my pants with all of those assets on the ground. Good for him for knowing his stuff, and sticking to his guns.
Annals of the Security State: More Airplane Stories - James Fallows - The Atlantic
I would have definitely pooped my pants with all of those assets on the ground. Good for him for knowing his stuff, and sticking to his guns.
Annals of the Security State: More Airplane Stories - James Fallows - The Atlantic
#2
Here's another one
#3
Interesting article. This isn't Kansas anymore. Some think it still is. Post 9-11, post-Boston, etc. The chances of this happening to Joe Pilot, however, are like 1 in 10,000. Use IFR and/or flight following and/or open a VFR flight plan to stay off the radar. Nobody wants their freedoms infringed, but it is what it is.
Lack of a TFR or lack of a R/P airspace over a power plant or similar critically important structure does not preclude using good judgement or common sense.
Not banned, does not then equal "should." Petting stray pit bulls is not illegal, but should you ?
Oh, and a Texas police officer yes, can ask to see your pilots license.
Lack of a TFR or lack of a R/P airspace over a power plant or similar critically important structure does not preclude using good judgement or common sense.
Not banned, does not then equal "should." Petting stray pit bulls is not illegal, but should you ?
Oh, and a Texas police officer yes, can ask to see your pilots license.
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,262
Interesting article. This isn't Kansas anymore. Some think it still is. Post 9-11, post-Boston, etc. The chances of this happening to Joe Pilot, however, are like 1 in 10,000. Use IFR and/or flight following and/or open a VFR flight plan to stay off the radar. Nobody wants their freedoms infringed, but it is what it is.
About 15 years ago a buddy of mine actually got violated by the FAA for failing to present his certificate to a cop. I don't remember the circumstance but he called the local FSDO, they sent out an inspector (while the cop waited) and when he told the inspector the circumstances, and that he had refused to present his certificate until said inspector arrived, he was promptly cited.
#7
Wrong, on so many levels. At what point will you finally push back?
About 15 years ago a buddy of mine actually got violated by the FAA for failing to present his certificate to a cop. I don't remember the circumstance but he called the local FSDO, they sent out an inspector (while the cop waited) and when he told the inspector the circumstances, and that he had refused to present his certificate until said inspector arrived, he was promptly cited.
About 15 years ago a buddy of mine actually got violated by the FAA for failing to present his certificate to a cop. I don't remember the circumstance but he called the local FSDO, they sent out an inspector (while the cop waited) and when he told the inspector the circumstances, and that he had refused to present his certificate until said inspector arrived, he was promptly cited.
(l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part must present it and their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a request from:
(1) The Administrator;
(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board; or
(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.
#9
There is a 200 mile buffer zone around the entire border (which encompasses entire states in many instances) where DHS has authority under executive order to search w/o warrant, seize property (such as laptops) w/o warrant, and several other insane powers/authorities...
#10
There is a 200 mile buffer zone around the entire border (which encompasses entire states in many instances) where DHS has authority under executive order to search w/o warrant, seize property (such as laptops) w/o warrant, and several other insane powers/authorities...
Supreme court has also already ruled on this and threw it out: Google Scholar
It is not enough to argue, as does the Government, that the problem of deterring unlawful entry by aliens across long expanses of national boundaries is a serious one. The needs of law enforcement stand in constant tension with the Constitution's protections of the individual against certain exercises of official power. It is precisely the predictability of these pressures that counsels a resolute loyalty to constitutional safeguards. It 274*274 is well to recall the words of Mr. Justice Jackson, soon after his return from the Nuremberg Trials:
"These [Fourth Amendment rights], I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government." Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 180 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
The Court that decided Carroll v. United States, supra, sat during a period in our history when the Nation was confronted with a law enforcement problem of no small magnitude—the enforcement of the Prohibition laws. But that Court resisted the pressure of official expedience against the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Chief Justice Taft's opinion for the Court distinguished between searches at the border and in the interior, and clearly controls the case at bar:
"It would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search. Travellers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary because of national self protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in. But those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is 275*275 known to a competent official authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise." 267 U. S., at 153-154.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
"These [Fourth Amendment rights], I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government." Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 180 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
The Court that decided Carroll v. United States, supra, sat during a period in our history when the Nation was confronted with a law enforcement problem of no small magnitude—the enforcement of the Prohibition laws. But that Court resisted the pressure of official expedience against the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Chief Justice Taft's opinion for the Court distinguished between searches at the border and in the interior, and clearly controls the case at bar:
"It would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search. Travellers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary because of national self protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in. But those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is 275*275 known to a competent official authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise." 267 U. S., at 153-154.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Last edited by JamesNoBrakes; 05-22-2013 at 05:20 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post