Monthly Archives: November 2016
An Indiana man was recently arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. It was later discovered that he was on his way to the Indianapolis airport. The man, identified as Robert Harris III, is a commercial pilot.
According to police, Harris’ eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he had trouble with coordination. In fact, according to court documents, field sobriety tests could not be completed because Harris almost fell over while trying to walk. It was later determined that his blood alcohol content was 0.29 percent.
It is unclear if Harris was scheduled to fly that evening and the airline for which Harris was employed refused to comment on the matter.
While federal regulations require that pilots follow an 8-hour “bottle to throttle” rule, some airlines require a 12-hour period between a pilot’s last drink and flight. Also, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, a pilot must report an alcohol-related conviction, suspension, revocation, and/or failed breath test within 60 days.
Since federal aviation regulations do not require a person to hold a driver’s license to fly a plane, the arrest and a subsequent conviction for driving under the influence does not necessarily preclude piloting aircraft following the arrest and/or conviction.
“The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) does not hesitate to act aggressively when pilots violate the alcohol and drug provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations,” said FAA spokesperson Elizabeth Cory. “Airlines are required to have random testing programs in place.”
“The FAA evaluates these cases on an individual basis, which could affect the pilot’s certificate eligibility,” said Cory.
Not surprisingly, this did not settle well with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).
“I would have assumed the FAA would have similar sanctions to the state of Indiana and withholding their license to operate a motor vehicle whether that’s a plane or car,” said MADD spokesperson Lael Hill. “It’s a little bit concerning knowing someone accused of a crime and is allegedly drinking and driving and could have their driver’s license taken away and not their pilot’s license or certificate.”
Hypothetically, had Harris had been on his way to the airport to fly, what would have happened had he flown an airplane under the influence?
First off, the California Vehicle Code does not apply to aircraft. Rather, crewmembers of civil aircrafts, including pilots, are governed by the FAA. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 91.17 states that, “no person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft within 8 hours after drinking alcohol, while under the influence of alcohol, while using any drug that affects the person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety, or while having an alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen.”
Furthermore, the FAA requires random alcohol screenings of pilots and are subject to an implied consent law similar to California’s DUI implied consent law.
Similarly, California Public Utility Code section 21407 reads, “It is unlawful for any person to operate an aircraft in the air, or on the ground or water in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. In any proceeding charging operation of aircraft in violation of this section, the court in determining whether the operation was careless or reckless shall consider the standards for safe operation of aircraft prescribed by federal statutes or regulations governing aeronautics.”
California penalties for a first time FUI include a county jail sentence of 30 days to six months, and/or a fine of $250 to $1,000. Federal penalties, on the other hand, are far more severe and can include up to 15 years in federal prison and up to $250,000.
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision and ruled that people can be arrested and convicted of driving under the influence even if it occurred on private property and have their licenses revoked.
The case stems from an incident in 2012 when a man by the name of Joshua Beckett crashed an ATV in a field on the farm owned by his family. Following the collision, Beckett was taken to the hospital where it was discovered that his blood alcohol content was 0.17 percent. He was subsequently charged with driving under the influence.
A magistrate dismissed the DUI case, but an administrative judge upheld a prior revocation of Beckett’s driver’s license for 45 days notwithstanding Beckett’s argument that there was no evidence that he drove on a public street or highway.
Beckett appealed the decision to the Monroe County Circuit Court. There, the circuit court judge ruled that because Beckett’s “actions did not occur on land open to public use,” the administrative judge did not have jurisdiction to revoke his license.
The Division of Motor Vehicles’ commissioner who originally revoked Beckett’s license appealed the decision to the West Virginia Supreme Court.
“The Legislature’s definition of the phrase ‘in this State’ … extends the reach of our driving-under-the-influence laws to any individual driving a vehicle within the physical boundaries of West Virginia, even if the vehicle is driven only upon private property not open to the general public,” Chief Justice Menis Ketchum who wrote a portion of the majority opinion. “The Legislature chose to structure our DUI statutes to regulate the condition of the driver, not the locale in which the driving is taking place. Thus, the Legislature expressed its plain intent to prohibit an intoxicated person from driving a vehicle anywhere in West Virginia, whether on public roads or across private land.”
The decision and its rationale mirrors that which the law here in California.
Division 11 of the California Vehicle Code sets forth the “rules of the road,” if you will, which includes California’s laws against driving with a 0.08 blood alcohol content or higher and driving while under the influence. California Vehicle Code section 21001 states, “The provisions of [Division 11] refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon the highways, unless a different place is specifically referred to.” The Code then goes on to state, “[t]he provisions of this chapter apply to vehicles upon the highways and elsewhere throughout the State unless expressly provided otherwise.”
Prior to 1982 the vehicle code made it illegal to drive drunk “upon a highway or upon other than a highway areas in which are open to the general public.” However, in 1982, the legislature deleted the language referring to the locations upon which a person could be arrested and ultimately convicted of drunk driving.
The California Court of Appeals in People v. Malvitz relied on the earlier version of the California Vehicle Code to help clarify the issue. The Court concluded that the “statute that prohibited driving under the influence of alcohol and/or any drug has emerged unencumbered with any language restricting its reach.”
In other words, the Court concluded that it was the intent of the legislature that, in deleting the portion of the statute which referred to location, the law which prohibits drunk driving should extend to anywhere in California where drunk drivers pose a threat included public highways as well private property.
Furthermore, California Vehicle Code section 23215 states, “[law enforcement] may, but shall not be required to, provide patrol or enforce the provisions of [California’s DUI law] for offenses which occur other than upon a highway.”
Whether you’re in West Virginia or in California, it is illegal to drive under the influence on public roads as well as on private property.
A person is arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence here in California. They are booked and released with a citation when law enforcement believes they have sobered up. The citation includes a court location and a date upon which the person must appear for their arraignment. About a month goes by and the person appears on the date indicated on the citation, but is surprised to learn that their case is not on the court’s calendar. They are given a slip proving that they appeared and told to keep their eyes open for a notification in the mail from the prosecutor’s office letting them know that charges have been filed.
After this scenario plays out, two questions arise from clients; 1.) Is this common? and 2.) How long do I have to wait?
Let’s tackle the first question.
When law enforcement gives the citation to the person who has been arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, they don’t actually know that the case will be filed on the date indicated in the citation. Typically, the date is set at least a month, sometimes several months, in advance. This gives law enforcement and prosecutor time to do several things before the court date.
Following, the arrest the officers must prepare the police report on the DUI arrest. This includes the actual written report, the interview of witnesses, the examination of evidence, and the preparation of any video footage.
Once the law enforcement agency completes its report, their file is sent to the prosecuting agency. Here in Southern California, the prosecuting agency is usually a City Attorney or a District Attorney. The prosecuting agency then reviews the file which was given to them by the arresting law enforcement agency and determines if there is enough evidence to file charges.
Often is the case that, by the time this process is complete, the date written on the bottom of the citation has come and gone. Once the prosecutor has all of the information they need and actually make the decision to file California DUI charges, they’ll issue a notification to the person letting them know that charges have been filed and give them a new court date.
So, to answer the first question, unfortunately the answer is yes, it is common and more common than people know.
On to the second question; “How long does the prosecutor have to file the charges?” In other words, how long must a person have to anxiously wait for those charges to be filed?
California Penal Code section 802 states, “Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), prosecution for an offense not punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison shall be commenced within one year after commission of the offense.” Subsections (b), (c), and (d) are not applicable to DUI cases.
Therefore, the prosecutor has one year from the date of arrest to file misdemeanor DUI charges. This is what is called a “statute of limitations.”
Unfortunately, many people mistakenly believe that because the prosecutor hasn’t filed charges by the date on the citation, that the prosecutor has forgotten or that the case just simply and magically disappears. Not so. They have a year.
Additionally, people whom DUI charges have been filed against them within that year, but fail to go to court for years afterwards are also mistaken in believing that they can’t face charges because it is past the statute of limitations. As long as the charges were filed within that year, the charges remain and the person likely has a warrant out for their arrest.
At least in my experience, prosecutors very rarely “forget” to file charges. While it may be common for the date on the citation to come and go, it is not common for that year to come and go without charges being filed. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.