Pilot wants DUI charges dropped

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site...= 18041&rfi=6

Pilot wants DUI charges dropped

Carl Hessler Jr. , Mercury Staff Writer 02/09/2004

NORRISTOWN -- The pilot who was forced to land in Limerick Jan. 15
after nearly colliding with a police helicopter claims in court papers
that Montgomery County prosecutors have no authority to take him to
court on drunken driving charges.

John V. Salamone, through his lawyer, Joseph P. Green Jr., is arguing
that federal law preempts state law in the area of commercial pilot
qualifications and capacity to operate aircraft in interstate commerce
where there is no death, injury or damage to property.

"There is no allegation that (Salamone) caused actual injury to any
persons or property. Therefore, the commonwealth lacks jurisdiction to
prosecute him for matters that are solely within the jurisdiction of
the federal government," Green wrote in the court document.

"As a result of the conduct in question," Green argued, the Federal
Aviation Administration has suspended and revoked Salamone’s
commercial pilot’s license, and Salamone has voluntarily surrendered
his FAA medical certificate.

Green has asked a county judge to dismiss all criminal charges against
Salamone, who was charged last week with risking a catastrophe,
recklessly endangering other people, and driving under the influence
of alcohol or a controlled substance.

Salamone is scheduled to have a preliminary hearing on the charges
March 2 before District Justice Walter F. Gadzicki Jr. of Limerick.

Assistant District Attorney John Gradel, the prosecutor assigned to
the case, said he will oppose Salamone’s request.

"The commonwealth has jurisdiction to pursue criminal charges against
the defendant," Gradel said. "We will file the appropriate response,
and I look forward to arguing the merits of the commonwealth’s
position in open court."

[...]

Salamone has a history of drunken driving offenses on land, according
to court records. Salamone was convicted twice of drunken driving in
connection with incidents in Collegeville and Pottstown in 1989 and
1990, court records indicate.

Salamone, who remains free on $25,000 bail, could face a maximum of 11
years in prison if convicted of the latest charges.

©The Mercury 2004

Larry Dighera ) wrote:

Salamone has a history of drunken driving offenses on land, according
to court records. Salamone was convicted twice of drunken driving in
connection with incidents in Collegeville and Pottstown in 1989 and
1990, court records indicate.

Now, there's a surprise.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

This is going to be a fascinating case.

C J Campbell wrote:

This is going to be a fascinating case.

I agree. Didn't a pilot in Florida succeed in getting DWI charges dropped with
that argument recently, or is that case still pending?

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

This is going to be a fascinating case.

I agree. Didn't a pilot in Florida succeed in getting DWI charges
dropped with
that argument recently, or is that case still pending?
George Patterson

It may be on appeal, but a different case. AIR, the argument was that
there's a federal criminal statute applicable to transportation
employees which says .1% blood-alcohol. That exceeded the airline
pilot's actual BAC, but he was above Florida's BAC % for pilots. That
sounds like a genuine equal-protecion argument and the federal
preemption. There's no federal criminal statute for Part 91 drunks,
so the situation is the ordinary one. Feds don't criminalize reckless
operation either, whereas most states do. Pilots have lost cases
arguing fed preemption there, under the argument that states have the
primary interest in protecting its citizens..

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
This is going to be a fascinating case.

I agree. Didn't a pilot in Florida succeed in getting DWI charges
dropped with
that argument recently, or is that case still pending?
George Patterson

It may be on appeal, but a different case. AIR, the argument was that
there's a federal criminal statute applicable to transportation
employees which says .1% blood-alcohol. That exceeded the airline
pilot's actual BAC, but he was above Florida's BAC % for pilots. That
sounds like a genuine equal-protecion argument and the federal
preemption. There's no federal criminal statute for Part 91 drunks,
so the situation is the ordinary one. Feds don't criminalize reckless
operation either, whereas most states do. Pilots have lost cases
arguing fed preemption there, under the argument that states have the
primary interest in protecting its citizens..

Who was being assaulted by the pilot's reckless and dangerous operation?

Certainly the People of Florida have a civil option, in State Court.

Certainly while the aircraft was in the air the constitution's
supremacy clause would prevent a drunk overflying pilot from exposure
to state criminal prosecution. However, the moment he taxied from the
hanger and after landing clearly is a state issue. Most states have
laws against hazardous activity without due regard. He'll probably get
his due.

-Robert



It may be on appeal, but a different case. AIR, the argument was that
there's a federal criminal statute applicable to transportation
employees which says .1% blood-alcohol. That exceeded the airline
pilot's actual BAC, but he was above Florida's BAC % for pilots. That
sounds like a genuine equal-protecion argument and the federal
preemption. There's no federal criminal statute for Part 91 drunks,
so the situation is the ordinary one. Feds don't criminalize reckless
operation either, whereas most states do. Pilots have lost cases
arguing fed preemption there, under the argument that states have the
primary interest in protecting its citizens..

Fred F.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
Certainly while the aircraft was in the air the constitution's
supremacy clause would prevent a drunk overflying pilot from exposure
to state criminal prosecution.

No, the pilot's recless and dangerous operation was assaulting a citizen of
the State. Just as FAA rolls up over noise issues, they will not protect
the pilot.