What's not to like. You get free room and board for more than half a year and you get a tax writeoff on that albatross of an airplane you've been trying to unload for a few years.

When I taught law, this was the kind of question I loved to dream up! This could tie up a class for three hours on an exam, or spark discussion and research for a week. Excellent question.

I am not a police officer. So, if you are looking for their perspective, skip on past this. You are really raising the issue of forfeiture more than search and seizure. But, let's take a quick look at search and seizure.

The police, including the various federal agencies that concentrate on the border, are governed by the fourth amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. (Note the Constitution says nothing about forfeitures.) Thus, police can search a vehicle, vessel or aircraft if they have a warrant. If they get a warrant, you are obligated to respect the warrant. I refrain from giving advice, but the best advice any lawyer can give someone when the police show up with a warrant is to say nothing.

Next, comes the question of searching and seizing without a warrant. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) the supreme court ruled that the police do not always need a warrant or even probable cause for a "brief" investigatory stop. They only need "reasonable" suspicion. All sorts of things can give the police "reasonable" suspicion but subject to the whims of whatever trial and appellate judges the evidence might come before. The police will always say they had some sort of reasonable suspicion when the make a warrantless stop and subsequent arrest and seizure of evidence. Reasonable is then in the eye of the various judges who may see it differently, or may not. Regardless, the police are told that whenever they make a warrentless search, they need to write up the report with some reasonable suspicions. For example, the police want to pull over a car on suspicion of drunk driving. The report, if the driver was not involved in an accident, will usually say the officer "observed the suspect vehicle weaving within the lane." And of course the officer will be prepared to testify that in his vast experience as a law enforcement officer that only drunks weave within the lane. This testimony is particularly useful when the driver is pulled out of the car and found to be stone cold sober.

Now, let's turn to what happens to the aircraft/vessel/vehicle owner or even operator when the aircraft/vessel/vehicle is searched and some white powdery substance is found in a passenger's luggage. A lot depends. If the police and prosecution think the aircraft owner was involved with the transport of the white powdery substance, then they will often seek forfeiture of the aircraft/vessel/vehicle. Further, the forfeiture statute on the federal level and in most states is civil in nature, not criminal. Thus, the state has a lower burden of proof for forfeiture and can often put the defendant in the unhappy situation of picking between testifying in his forfeiture trial and preserving his right to be free from self-incrimination. If the defendant decides to testify at the forfeiture trial, it becomes a free deposition for the prosecution that they ordinarily could not get at any price. On the other hand, if the police, and, more importantly , the prosecution are not convinced that the operator or owner of the aircraft/vessel/vehicle knew anything about the contraband, then they will usually not seek forfeiture. The exception being if you have some aircraft/vessel/vehicle they really want. The best defense in a forfeiture case often comes from the lien holder. A letter from the lien holder to the police saying that they have no objection to the forfeiture provided the police pay off the lien first is usually enough to get the police to forget about forfeiture.

HTH
Alan Bradley

This communication is not legal advice. No attorney client relationship is created hereby. This communication is offered solely for the general education of those who read it.

As far as this lawyer is concerned, perfect. Absolutely perfect.

As far as this lawyer is concerned, perfect. Absolutely perfect.

Well since I have had my hand slapped may I simply say thank you Ben and Alan.

I'm just amused at the concept that a beat cop would have the foggiest idea whether you had all your 337's or not and whether they were valid. You could carry a 337 stating that N222XX was authorized to increase c from 3.0 * 10^8 m/s to 3.3 * 10^8m/s and they wouldn't know the difference.

----
reply:
So far, in all the situations reported That I know of, the LE involved spent most of thier time trying to figure out what to do in the first place. Even if you complied, they still looked like the Keystone cops scratching thier heads trying to figure out what to do with a COMPLIANT suspect. Image what would happen if the real deal showed up.

Hilarity would ensue Im sure....
------------------
another reply:

Charles, you are 100% correct.
In Feburary I was privledged enough to learn Border Patrol is now doing ramp checks.
While unloading the airplane in the hanger, a nice white and green suv with "Border Patrol" all down the sides pulls up, and my heart sank. I thougt what on earth did I do to raise the attention of this guy? I checked notams and tfrs, I was nowhere near the border...
As it was, he was just passing by and thought he would swing in. After a little conversation I asked if he knew he was a long way from the border? He stated TSA is having them do ramp checks at "small" airports that are with-in 100 miles of the (Canadian) border. He stated he had not officially started doing them yet because he had not taken the "FOUR HOUR CLASS" to learn what he was looking for. In fact, it seemed he knew absolutly nothing about airplanes or pilots other then he has a friend who wants to be a pilot.
He was a nice enough guy, we talked for quite a while, he never asked for my ID or anything (this time) (I do think he wrote down my tail #), just gave me his card said to call him if I see anything suspicious. I chuckled and said I think this is going to be an awfully boring job for you, especially in the winter as I think I was the only airplane to move on our field in two months.

Since then I have seen their trucks thru twice. Not sure if they have started harassing pilots yet or not.
Picture this is on a very small field with 25 hangers and about 6 or 7 active pilots.

The problem is local law enforcement is getting advice from the TSA that we are required to have all our 337s. Further, that advice erroneous as it is, forms the basis for reasonable suspicion underTerry v. Ohio. Take away your rights on an erroneous fax. I do not find that the least bit amusing.

Alan Bradley

Isn't that what you would want ?

A professional who:
- knows what his rights and limitations under title 19 and 8 are based on his training as CBP officer
- has received training in what to look for when checking an aircraft (and to presumably not run into the prop)

.....instead of the keystone cops acting on erroneus faxes and without a clue what to do with a plane.

....instead of some sleigh of hand combined FAA/CBP action.


One of the problems of this whole program is that they have farmed it out to local PDs and sheriffs who are unfamiliar with the airport environment. For the same reason, most police agencies have specialized units to do truck enforcement. It is very different from regular traffic work (paperwork involved, overweight permits, hazmat) and the normal patrolman just ends up looking like a boob if he has to read every document over the phone to some guy at headquarters.

In related news:

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/aircraft-d ... heron-lake

New Mexico State Police confirm that an aircraft has crashed into Heron Lake in northern New Mexico and several bundles of cocaine were found near the downed plane.

What's not to like. You get free room and board for more than half a year and you get a tax writeoff on that albatross of an airplane you've been trying to unload for a few years.

Sort of.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IV > § 1225

(d) Authority relating to inspections
(1) Authority to search conveyances
Immigration officers are authorized to board and search any vessel, aircraft, railway car, or other conveyance or vehicle in which they believe aliens are being brought into the United States.

So customs can board your plane to check for stowaways without a warrant. They cannot search the plane, e.g. for the presence of contraband like drugs without either a warrant or probable cause (e.g. the bundles of cocaine sticking above the luggage compartment divider).

Did somebody already post the 'Don't talk to the cops' video of the law-professor explaining why ?

Actually, I have a lot of problems around this whole issue but my biggest problem is Homeland Security targeting law abiding citizens on fishing expeditions. They are using local LEOs to extend their reach into every facet of Americans lives.

Homeland Security was created under the guise of preventing foreign terrorist from entering our country. They now perform invasive pat downs on 3 year olds. What politician will stand up for the constitution?

http://www.pixiq.com/article/las-vegas- ... taping-him

A criminal with a badge assaults a photographer. Again. Happens all the time.

Very little recourse for the victim when assaulted by the police. If there was not video, the charges of assault on a police officer may have been upheld.

Food for thought. If this criminal had not been wearing a badge and uniform, it would have been legal and appropriate to use deadly force to stop the assault.

If you are in law enforcement, and you don't understand why the public is afraid of you, note that there are hundreds of similar videos available now.

I support law enforcement, in general, but I fear any official interaction with any police officer, and I recommend always, always having a voice recorder on you and running -- all the time.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... er&x=0&y=0

Spike, just in case this wasn't clear, I was being facetious. It actually churns my innards that something like this could happen to an innocent pilot.



Wellsir:

The forfeiture action is pending as we speak. The airplane (a 421C) is impounded and stored pending outcome. The owner, having been released after a jury walked him without hesitation, is hoping he might some day see his airplane again.

Every shred of evidence against this drive-by victim (save and except the fact of the drugs being in the plane when it landed) is based upon the characterization, by the government LEOs, of the pilot's voluntary statements. No recording, no stenographic record, just the testimony of what "he said" by the federal LEO.

This was his livelihood, his profession.