Pilot wants DUI charges dropped

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.