Fellow LML'ers



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...



Bob Rickard

IV-P



On 18 April, 2011, I filed IFR from KGEU to K1H0 direct, with my wife on
board. At 0845L, I departed KGEU VFR and picked up my filed IFR clearance
to K1H0 at FL210 with ABQ center. The flight was uneventful and I cancelled
IFR approximately 10 miles from K1H0 with St. Louis Approach and landed at
1443L. Upon landing and taxi to my hanger (P3) at Creve Coeur Airport, I
was surrounded by 6 Maryland Heights Police cars and about 10 officers. I
exited the plane and was approached by the supervisor and asked if I had any
identification. I produced my military ID (I am a LtCol in the Air Force
Reserve flying F-22's) as well as my driver's license, and asked the
supervisor what the problem was. He told me that he got a "tip" from the
Federal Government that there may be a federal fugitive on board by the name
of Robert Mcrae. He wasn't sure of the name and asked me if I knew anyone
by a name similar to that, to which I answered "no" to all. He also stated
that he was surprised to see a woman in the plane with me since his
informant said there would be two men in the plane. I inquired as to who
would give a tip like that, and he was vague. A this point my wife exited
the plane and was asked to produce her ID as well and was questioned as to
what we were doing and where we were going and where we came from. It was
apparent to the supervisor pretty quickly that my wife and I were not
federal fugitives as they ran our ID's, but he asked to search the airplane
anyway. I told him that I was aware of my rights and he could not search
anything without a warrant, and he was quick to add "or your permission" and
"I could have the dogs come out". (side note - they don't need a warrant to
have the dogs check out your aircraft - if the dogs find something and
indicate, then they have probable cause to search you without a warrant. If
the dogs find nothing they cannot search your aircraft until a warrant is
issued). I told him that I would play nice, had nothing to hide, and that
my plan was to take my belongings out of the airplane and put them in my car
to go home, and I would allow him to see what I took out and visually see
inside the cockpit and baggage compartment, but I was not allowing a search
of the airplane. He agreed to this. I took my 2 pieces of luggage out of
the back and showed him the contents briefly (not a complete search but
opened up the zipper and showed clothes on top) as well as the couple of
vases we had bought in Phoenix and lunch/sodas we had in the cockpit. They
saw nothing of interest and returned my wife's ID, but kept mine and made
further calls. The supervisor indicated "I'm on overtime, I am outta here"
and left, but another officer checked with "EPIC" (unsure of the spelling)
which he told me was an international consortium that traded information on
travel, etc. He told me he was aware of my trip earlier this year to Mexico
and the Cayman Islands (honeymoon cruise) but there was nothing to get me in
trouble. He then returned my ID and let us go.

It seems the pilot filed a FOIA request to get more information.

A copy of the fax is attached:
---------------------------------------------------
We were able to get a copy of the fax that was sent to the local police. The “Tip” came from Customs and Border Patrol in CA. And the local Police chief was actually apologetic because he knew it was bogus. The tip itself is BS. They made it up. IF they had been watching me or investigating me they would have known my wife was with me and not some dude. That is the only part that is really a violation, they are making up an excuse to get the locals excited, and then seeing what they find. Another example was a guy accused of transporting computer chips that were stolen. I can imagine them making up stories over the coffee in the morning.

How would the public react if any Fed agency routinely made up tips so the cops would come to your house and want to search? Imagine the news coverage. That is the same thing going on here. If they have something on you, then absolutely go for it. But they did not in the 3 cases we know about just at our local airport.

The lesson you derived is correct though. Know your rights, and also know how you can help them do their job without violating your rights. That is the best thing you can do (if innocent) while saying the least amount possible.

Bob R

Mr Smith is watching you.

I passed this on to some people, another pilot's reply:
----------------------------------
I just called that number, 866-247-2878.

I was handed off to Tony Martinez <sp> who said he was an aviation
enforcement specialist at the Air and Marine Operations Center in Riverside,
Calif.

Based on the beeping I heard on the line, I assume the telephone call was
recorded.

He wanted to know who I was and who I represented or was "with."

I gave him my first and last name and said I'm simply a pilot in Florida.

The Reader's Digest version of our conversation, taken from memory:

I explained I had some questions about a document -- the one in question --
and read its title to him.

He asked where I got the document.

I said someone gave it to me. More importantly, I added, several of the six
document requirements are almost certainly incorrect, mentioning #5 (pilot's
logbook) and #6 (Form 337). I pointed out these aren't FAA requirements.

He said Form 337s are paperwork for modifications to the aircraft and must
be in the aircraft.

I said I thought the only Form 337 that must be carried in the aircraft was
one for the installation of extra fuel tanks.

He said I should contact the FAA with my concerns.

I said this is a Dept of Homeland Security guide, not an FAA document, so I
didn't think the appropriate action was to contact the FAA.

He said he was more concerned about where I got the document.

I explained I was worried I'd be confronted by law-enforcement officers at
an airport and would run into problems because I wasn't carrying all the
documents listed in the guide.

He said this was a "guide" and "they'll be talking to us." Further
back-and-forth made me realize he meant the officers would be in real-time
contact with Martinez's facility during such a confrontation.

I said this might not be the case, and I mentioned the John and Martha King
incident and one recently at a St. Louis airport, where the police thought
the aircraft was carrying a federal fugitive when in fact it contained a
lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserves who flew F22s.

I asked who in the DHS I should contact to get the guide corrected. He said
I could send my input to his facility.

He again mentioned his concern about my having a copy of the doc.

How do we push back against this? AOPA seems too distracted selling wine to
act on our behalf.

For a change, the conduct of these officers sounds quite reasonable.

We can't expect customs* to 'protect the border' and then get bent out of shape if they create an inconvenience to us when they do. It sounds like the information provided by their tracking center was faulty, but I guess that's the nature of intelligence gathering that you run down the wrong alley a time or two.



*In this case the local police acting at their behest.

Thanks in due to govt. duty, i've was on the watch list 40 years ago.
too late for me.

NEVER consent to a search. If you make the mistake of consenting to a search, you may revoke your consent at any time. Such revocation cannot be used as PC for a warrant or further search.

If it were Angelina Jolie, I'd rather have Ms. Smith watching me...

Sam -

Are you suggesting that he should not have 'compromised' by allowing the items removed to be inspected?

I thought this was a good way to allow the officers to save face and put some closure to the process. I ask out of curiosity - not trying to be provocative.

-MO

Kent,

What is the link to the lancair list?

Sam -

Are you suggesting that he should not have 'compromised' by allowing the items removed to be inspected?

I thought this was a good way to allow the officers to save face and put some closure to the process. I ask out of curiosity - not trying to be provocative.

-MO

Mark,

IMHO, there NEVER should be any compromise when it comes to our Constitutional rights. It's a very slippery slope we are headed down right now. All it takes now to have probable cause for a search is a 'tip' from some anonymous source? The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Yep.

Never agree to a search of your car or your plane, even if they say they will tow the car, arrest you, etc.

"I'm sorry, officer, but I can't agree to a search."

Enough is enough with these occurrences. I like how they assume you'll just surrender your liberties for convenience.

What idiot wrote the guide! There is no requirement that I have my pilots log in the aircraft. Oh, I see it came from HSA! Question answered.