Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:14:29 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4953125@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.164; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com
References: <list-4952360@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4952360@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8C148)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: vtailjeff@aol.com
Subject: Re: [LML] FW: [LML] Re: beware, you may be searched!
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33844daf8fd4347d
X-AOL-IP: 24.107.65.42

Lynn,

Well said.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 20, 2011, at 1:59 PM, "Karen Farnsworth" <farnsworth@charter.net> wro=
te:

>=20
>=20
>=20
> William,
>=20
>=20
>=20
> To each his own, but I see a little more in this than you do. This seems t=
o
> be happening more and more; acting on bad information. The case that drew
> the most attention was the King incident. Handcuffed and treated quite
> rudely.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> When you stand on you right to not have your airplane searched without a
> warrant they say things like, "if you have nothing to hid why won't you le=
t
> me search"?=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> To me this is part of the trend to allow the government to be all and know=

> all.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I will tell them, "no warrant, no search".
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Lynn Farnsworth
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ________________________________
>=20
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
> William Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 08:05
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: [LML] Re: beware, you may be searched!
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> The main lesson IMO is that, while there are plenty of cops who abuse powe=
r,
> 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 see=
ms
> to be what happened here.
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Bob Rickard <r.rickard@rcginc-us.com>
> wrote:
>=20
> Fellow LML'ers
>=20
>=20
>=20
> It seems inevitable that the govt will search you at some point.  Just som=
e
> 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...
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Bob Rickard
>=20
> IV-P
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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 cancell=
ed
> 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 a=
ny
> 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 na=
me
> 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 state=
d
> 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 wa=
s
> 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 airplan=
e
> 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" a=
nd
> "I could have the dogs come out".  (side note - they don't need a warrant t=
o
> 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.  I=
f
> 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 c=
ar
> 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 searc=
h
> 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.  The=
y
> 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 o=
n
> travel, etc.  He told me he was aware of my trip earlier this year to Mexi=
co
> and the Cayman Islands (honeymoon cruise) but there was nothing to get me i=
n
> trouble.  He then returned my ID and let us go.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l