Really, Mike. We're not face to face. No facial expressions or voice inflections to tell if something is snarky or not. Easy for any of us to misinterpret.
I
idiot
Guest
Op here again. Just to stress again this did not involve a motor vehicle what so ever.
brian109
Pre-takeoff checklist
You know I am a cop and when I had one of my suspects come to me when he sobered up and apologized for acting like an asshat I did drop the charges and made sure the guy only had to pay court costs. Now I agree with you about the lawyer part but not all cops are out to **** somebody
brian109
Pre-takeoff checklist
Law enforcement officer
I
idiot
Guest
It took me a bit to figure that out. Former aux leo and deputy. The cop did say he'd help me out.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Federal Alcohol Evaluation 101
1st lecture outline
So the Federal evaluation system depends on TOLERANCE (forgive me Dr. Garber if this isn't EXACTLY right). The only way one can get tolerant is lots of consumption over time. For an alcohol naieve person, 0.10 would mean total inability to operate a motor vehicle. That person at 0.18 would be very near alcohol poisoning, e.g, not breathing and in need of endotracheal intubation and life support, or face down off a cub and someone watching the airway.
A tolerant person, pulled over at 0.20 BAC is operating and likely doing a somewhat credible job of it, even takes a stab at roadside sobriety testing.
Your only chance, if an LEO impunes you behavior (DUI- non alcohol for example, no smell), nothing you can say is credible. After all you have been impuned. All is fodder for the finding of inconsistency and suspicion. There are only two things that can speak in your favor- a negative field BAC and/or a negative controlled blood alcohol done by a controlled lab. Never mind the time delay, we have tables for that to go back to the roadside moment.
So if you are completely sober, you need to blow and you need to get any hospital based blood values you can, because your conduct cannot speak in your behalf. It has been discounted.
If you aren't sober, then G_d help you.
****
For one offense, at or above a value of 0.15 (assumed or real), you can be
(1) evaluated by a State licensed Cert. Alcohol and Drug counselor. FAA does not use DSM5 criteria, but rather a variation of DSM4. No check boxes are allowed. The loss of control, tolerance, withdrawal syndrome, continued use in the face of known consequences, lifestyle centered on the use of substance, all have to be essayed separate for unlike DSM-4, ANY ONE of these can give you the FAA diagnosis of "alcohol dependence". The M.A. level guys are fairly adaptable and I can usually guide them so the report will be useful. The B.A guys, not so much. We have no use for mild/mod/severe Alcohol use disorder from DSM5.
(2) You have to prove it's your "one and only". You get a 10 year DMV search (not the free one on the internet but the kind you pay for and wait) to prove this: All states in which you have had licenses.
(3) You need a personal statement detailing your drinking habits, the events of the night in question and what you learned, and THAT cannot hit the DSM-4 tripwires.
(4) You need evidence of an educational course.
When I did my time at OKC I had a guy whose file I didn't complete reading - because he convicted himself in the personal statement. Usually, if you really do have a problem, you don't see the issues. The attitude, "everybody does it, so it's gotta be acceptable" is a total waterloo, as it was for the guy's file that I reviewed.
*****
So if you get A BAC above 0.20, and in reality anything over 0.17, it's at least alcohol use disorder and abuse; anything over 0.20 is presumptive alcohol dependency. (to get that great a level and still be operating a car. I'd be dead). You need HIMS. If you don't know what that is, attend lecture #2 (dunno if I'll write it).
If you don't blow, remember you still have to report the alcohol related arrest. A plead down to a wet reckless is still an alcohol related public event that needs evaluation. So if the original ticket even mentions alcohol, even if you beat it you still have to be evaluated at FAA (on your upcoming medical). That's why the FAA demands the arrest record, including the comments of the arresting officer.
I have had guys early in their careers who saw this, got the wet reckless plead down (no 61.15 report), got on an abstinence monitoring program (9 months), and by the time the next medical came, had 9 month's proveable abstinence, favorable lists of logged recovery activities, concurrences of a HMS psychiatrist, and HIMS psychologist, and got HIMS special issued prior to their upcoming expiration. Didn't miss a day of work. BUT YOU HAVE TO SEE THE LIGHT.
So deny deny deny that you have a problem just gets you grounded.
From the federal point of view, you need to blow DEFENSIVELY.
If you get convicted you have the same problem- just you have a 61.15 report to do in 60 days and the wheels turn a little faster. I've another guy who saw that coming (wheels of 61.15 started turning), started on his abstinence program, by the time the agency yanked his second class, he had 8 weeks of sobriety to go; he was restored to 2nd class after missing 10 weeks of work...can you say "NOT FIRED?" He had to remain monitored for FOUR years. Now we are working on getting his Canadian pardon. When the boss wants to go to Toronto, he waits in the "not quite in Canada area" of the airport as he is denied entry.
********
Now, abuse vs dependency:
From 61.107:
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation; or
When one falls short of the above criteria for alcohol dependence, but (1) or (2) above is satisfied, you get two years of random urines and sponsorship with the HIMS AME, they call you pee, for two years, without the Thanksgiving dinner trimmings. And you'd better not miss.
*******
In case anyone is still in doubt, the FAA expects airmen to be abstinent. This is why Randy Babbitt got fired. The ONLY Exception is the 3rd class airman who had abuse, did his two year of monitoring, passed, got back in the regular issuance pool. He can go back to drinking if he stays out of trouble. EVERYONE ELSE is expected to REMAIN ABSTINENT.
Did the wife throw you out because you'd been drinking, were belligerent, and you got arrested? BUSTED. See 18(x). HIMS for you.
To "idiot". Don't be one. GET AN ATTORNEY.
1st lecture outline
So the Federal evaluation system depends on TOLERANCE (forgive me Dr. Garber if this isn't EXACTLY right). The only way one can get tolerant is lots of consumption over time. For an alcohol naieve person, 0.10 would mean total inability to operate a motor vehicle. That person at 0.18 would be very near alcohol poisoning, e.g, not breathing and in need of endotracheal intubation and life support, or face down off a cub and someone watching the airway.
A tolerant person, pulled over at 0.20 BAC is operating and likely doing a somewhat credible job of it, even takes a stab at roadside sobriety testing.
Your only chance, if an LEO impunes you behavior (DUI- non alcohol for example, no smell), nothing you can say is credible. After all you have been impuned. All is fodder for the finding of inconsistency and suspicion. There are only two things that can speak in your favor- a negative field BAC and/or a negative controlled blood alcohol done by a controlled lab. Never mind the time delay, we have tables for that to go back to the roadside moment.
So if you are completely sober, you need to blow and you need to get any hospital based blood values you can, because your conduct cannot speak in your behalf. It has been discounted.
If you aren't sober, then G_d help you.
****
For one offense, at or above a value of 0.15 (assumed or real), you can be
(1) evaluated by a State licensed Cert. Alcohol and Drug counselor. FAA does not use DSM5 criteria, but rather a variation of DSM4. No check boxes are allowed. The loss of control, tolerance, withdrawal syndrome, continued use in the face of known consequences, lifestyle centered on the use of substance, all have to be essayed separate for unlike DSM-4, ANY ONE of these can give you the FAA diagnosis of "alcohol dependence". The M.A. level guys are fairly adaptable and I can usually guide them so the report will be useful. The B.A guys, not so much. We have no use for mild/mod/severe Alcohol use disorder from DSM5.
(2) You have to prove it's your "one and only". You get a 10 year DMV search (not the free one on the internet but the kind you pay for and wait) to prove this: All states in which you have had licenses.
(3) You need a personal statement detailing your drinking habits, the events of the night in question and what you learned, and THAT cannot hit the DSM-4 tripwires.
(4) You need evidence of an educational course.
When I did my time at OKC I had a guy whose file I didn't complete reading - because he convicted himself in the personal statement. Usually, if you really do have a problem, you don't see the issues. The attitude, "everybody does it, so it's gotta be acceptable" is a total waterloo, as it was for the guy's file that I reviewed.
*****
So if you get A BAC above 0.20, and in reality anything over 0.17, it's at least alcohol use disorder and abuse; anything over 0.20 is presumptive alcohol dependency. (to get that great a level and still be operating a car. I'd be dead). You need HIMS. If you don't know what that is, attend lecture #2 (dunno if I'll write it).
If you don't blow, remember you still have to report the alcohol related arrest. A plead down to a wet reckless is still an alcohol related public event that needs evaluation. So if the original ticket even mentions alcohol, even if you beat it you still have to be evaluated at FAA (on your upcoming medical). That's why the FAA demands the arrest record, including the comments of the arresting officer.
I have had guys early in their careers who saw this, got the wet reckless plead down (no 61.15 report), got on an abstinence monitoring program (9 months), and by the time the next medical came, had 9 month's proveable abstinence, favorable lists of logged recovery activities, concurrences of a HMS psychiatrist, and HIMS psychologist, and got HIMS special issued prior to their upcoming expiration. Didn't miss a day of work. BUT YOU HAVE TO SEE THE LIGHT.
So deny deny deny that you have a problem just gets you grounded.
From the federal point of view, you need to blow DEFENSIVELY.
If you get convicted you have the same problem- just you have a 61.15 report to do in 60 days and the wheels turn a little faster. I've another guy who saw that coming (wheels of 61.15 started turning), started on his abstinence program, by the time the agency yanked his second class, he had 8 weeks of sobriety to go; he was restored to 2nd class after missing 10 weeks of work...can you say "NOT FIRED?" He had to remain monitored for FOUR years. Now we are working on getting his Canadian pardon. When the boss wants to go to Toronto, he waits in the "not quite in Canada area" of the airport as he is denied entry.
********
Now, abuse vs dependency:
From 61.107:
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation; or
When one falls short of the above criteria for alcohol dependence, but (1) or (2) above is satisfied, you get two years of random urines and sponsorship with the HIMS AME, they call you pee, for two years, without the Thanksgiving dinner trimmings. And you'd better not miss.
*******
In case anyone is still in doubt, the FAA expects airmen to be abstinent. This is why Randy Babbitt got fired. The ONLY Exception is the 3rd class airman who had abuse, did his two year of monitoring, passed, got back in the regular issuance pool. He can go back to drinking if he stays out of trouble. EVERYONE ELSE is expected to REMAIN ABSTINENT.
Did the wife throw you out because you'd been drinking, were belligerent, and you got arrested? BUSTED. See 18(x). HIMS for you.
To "idiot". Don't be one. GET AN ATTORNEY.
Last edited:
I
idiot
Guest
Dr. Bruce, thank you so much for your input. I though 61.15 only involved alcohol accidents involving motor vehicles. I'm got a lot of work to do tomorrow.
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
Idiot, I can only say that you need to follow the advice given here and keep pressing forward. There are some people offering you good advice and the choices you make now may have a very significant impact on your future. Everybody makes mistakes, but some pay more severely than others. This is a good opportunity to learn from an error in judgement that could prevent a worse mistake in the future. I've been around a while, and I've seen some get away with way too much, and some people ruined over something most of us have done. I've gotten away with plenty but was able to learn from it and move on. Don't beat yourself up too much. This doesn't sound like a show stopper to me, but my opinion means little at this point. I hope the best for you.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
NOT 61.15 yet unless you have been convicted...
I
idiot
Guest
Thanks, Bruce. And thanks to everyone on this post that's offered a helping hand. I'll keep you posted, Dr. Bruce.
Circuit Flyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 408
- Display Name
Display name:
Circuit Flyer
Looking forward to hearing how it works out. Good luck!
AggieMike88
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,804
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Thank you Dr. Bruce for that detailed post. It helped clear up several points that I had questions on.
Doggtyred
En-Route
With regards to anything that requires a government background check.. including your future medicals... if you are asked "have you ever been arrested"... you are going to be found deceptive if you answer anything other than "yes". Even if expunged, I have been led to believe by very credible people on this forum that it will always be discoverable by the government itself. Employers might not be able to find it, but the FAA always will. So tread carefully, and dont treat expunction as a clean slate.. there are limits.
Doggtyred
En-Route
Your BIL is giving you correct advice from a criminal defense standpoint with regards to alcohol testing. But it will put you in an indefensible position in the civil arena with the FAA. Doc Bruce has elaborated on this numerous times over the years with regards to what alcohol levels are considered a sign of abuse/tolerance or not.
Aggie... In TEXAS, Public Intoxication is officer discretion. No alcohol level. You just have to appear impaired and you can be popped. Thats why if you are ever drunk on your front porch or other private property you control, and the police show up for some reason, DO NOT step onto the sidewalk or street, which is a public easement.
You cannot get a PI at home because you aren't in public. You could in theory get popped for disorderly conduct, but that is also officer discretion as well. My friends in fire/ems used to call Disorderly Conduct by the name "POP" for ****in off the police.
PI is not associated with operating a vehicle. DWI/BWI most DA's will want an alcohol level to make the case, but the sanctions are more severe than PI. Disorderly Conduct and PI are typically both class C misdemeanors.
I
idiot
Guest
Trust me, the last thing i want to do is hide something from the FAA. In reality, you could be safe for a couple of years, but sooner or later, i know it will come back to bite you.
This is pretty much a universal truth that applies in all criminal investigations, and many administrative ones. Once you are under suspicion, whatever you say or do will be viewed by those in authority as showing guilt.
[One minor point of disagreement. The LEO will smell alcohol if he suspects a DUI, even if you haven't been drinking. "Minor" precisely because it fits in with the ultimate point.]
And, according to the rest of the post, it applies just as much to the FAA in evaluating alcohol dependency. What you say means far less than what the record says.
I'm keeping this post -all of it - for future reference.
bflynn
Final Approach
Maybe I'm missing something, but the only issue I see right now is that someone went out with friends, got drunk and apparently got into a minor scuffle. The police were called.
There's no automobile and no drugs involved, so 61.15 doesn't ever apply. (OP - Thank you for being smart there. You're not such an idiot because of that). The charges are misdemeanors. A lawyer will be involved and will hopefully negotiate a fair settlement.
Unless there is a conviction, I don't see that there's anything reportable until the next medical and then only "I was arrested for public intoxication plus whatever else can be made to stick and fined $200." First time offense, first public record item, it seems like it raises some eyebrows but it doesn't trip any alarms.
Assuming what I'm reading matches the legal facts, what am I missing?
There's no automobile and no drugs involved, so 61.15 doesn't ever apply. (OP - Thank you for being smart there. You're not such an idiot because of that). The charges are misdemeanors. A lawyer will be involved and will hopefully negotiate a fair settlement.
Unless there is a conviction, I don't see that there's anything reportable until the next medical and then only "I was arrested for public intoxication plus whatever else can be made to stick and fined $200." First time offense, first public record item, it seems like it raises some eyebrows but it doesn't trip any alarms.
Assuming what I'm reading matches the legal facts, what am I missing?
I
idiot
Guest
Op here, yeah, i'd never get behind the wheel. I'm very confused on the matter too, Doctor Bruce has cleared up a lot for me (Thanks again, Doctor Bruce!) But still there is some grey areas i'm trying to comprehend. Another reason i'm consulting an criminal lawyer today and an aviation lawyer tomorrow.
tawood
En-Route
I'm career law enforcement too, and when it comes to cases like this, as long as there is no victim, the local city usually just wants your money. I wouldn't sweat it. Get an attorney, and see if you can make a deal to pay fines and have the case "held in abeyance"...something like completing probation will in the end have charge dismissed. Maybe you can get an even better deal to have the case dismissed UPON paying the fines...resolutions like this happen all the time.
Oh, and although the arresting officer may not be your friend, DON'T make him your enemy either.
Oh, and although the arresting officer may not be your friend, DON'T make him your enemy either.
You are assuming a minor offense with a slap on the hand disposition. That may be the case or it may not. Drunk, disorderly, menacing, mischief can be as simple a being too loud-mouthed or it can be police being called in and quieting things down before a major brawl. I've seen "minor" offenses treated strongly when there is a perceived problem in an area. Keeping the example it away from the events in this case, a punch in the nose that occurs between two friends who have an argument privately might be treated as no big deal; if it occurs at a park that has a long history of way-too-many violent confrontations, it might be treated a little more harshly.
So, instead of assuming the $200 first offense fine, let's assume the facts presented to the judge indicate a drinking issue. Instead of the fine, but still something most would consider a slap on the wrist, the judge orders something like two 1-hour alcohol education classes. Still quite a "fair settlement." Let's make it even fairer - no conviction. The $200 is costs and upon completion of the two hour program, the case is dismissed. Problem is, now you have an 18(v)(3) alcohol-related disclosure on the medical (rather than the 18(w) "other" conviction disclosure) and a trigger for an FAA alcohol inquiry as Bruce describes.
Hope is not a sound legal strategy.
Stop kidding yourself. How will you feel if they throw the book at you and you didn't have competent counsel defending you? You will then go through life telling yourself I screwed up twice: once being out with the boys and letting things get out of hand, and again going to a court bureaucracy as a newbie without counsel. You are in trouble, use every avenue you have to mitigate the trouble.
Sorry for this big hiccup in your career.
-Skip
Last edited:
JCranford
En-Route
The typical standard is "the subject is a danger to himself or others due to his level of intoxication". The problem with that is 1) it is subjective and 2) some officers think that 'intoxication' automatically equals 'danger to himself or others', which of course is not the case. The officer needs to be able to articulate WHY you were a danger to yourself or others. Are you falling down drunk? Are you belligerent and trying to start fight? Just because you didnt pass field sobriety exercises doesnt mean you are a danger.
And as far as where you can be charged. It must be a 'public place' (street, bar, store), not a private home / property.
As far as 'what is the best course of action to take'? From a conviction standpoint, dont blow, dont do field sobriety exercises, and talk as little as possible. Just stand there and be polite.
Last edited:
orange
Line Up and Wait
When you're in prison, you sometimes don't have a choice. There's some big guys in there, you gotta do what you gotta do to survive.
Last edited:
I
idiot
Guest
currently consulting with multiple attorneys at the moment. No public defender. Gotta do this right.
Chip Sylverne
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 6,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Quit with the negative waves, man.
If I read the original facts correctly, the OP mentioned apologizing for tearing the cop's shirt. If he was in uniform, that's assault on a police officer. You can't lay hands on anyone, much less a cop. Could been ALOT worse than the filed charges.
Good job lining up an attorney. See if he/she can get it settled prior to adjudication.
Good luck.
Good job lining up an attorney. See if he/she can get it settled prior to adjudication.
Good luck.
orange
Line Up and Wait
I think he ripped another guy's shirt, not the cop's. Basically a drunken bar fight where cops were called. Time to grow up.
Since there was another guy involved, this may not be as easy as getting all charges dropped.
I
idiot
Guest
Op here. Yeah, not the best night of my life, but council with an attorney seemed very promising.
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,219
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
There's something about refusing a motor vehicle related breathalyzer test that I haven't seen mentioned explicitly in this thread.
I seem to recall Dr. Bruce saying the FAA automatically considers a refusal the equivalent of a .15 BAC.
Is this correct?
I seem to recall Dr. Bruce saying the FAA automatically considers a refusal the equivalent of a .15 BAC.
Is this correct?
lbfjrmd
Line Up and Wait
refusal = .2 = tolerance (dependency) = HIMS. ( I defer to Dr. C ) I have never seen attorneys be worth the cost when an airman's case is of HIMS severity but i 'win' all HIMS cases i agree to take.
bflynn
Final Approach
Probably because there was no motor vehicle involved, so a motor vehicle breathalyzer is irrelevant. Too many people seem determined to make this something it isn't.
Unless we're not getting all the information. That would be a good thing since there is a criminal case going on and the defendant speaking in public is a bad thing. Come back and tell us everything that happened afterwards.
Last edited:
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Refusal = 0.15 , actually. Doesn't really matter, though. It just triggers and IMO appropriate evaluation.
0.20 is HIMS. No two ways about it! There is some literate in the toxicology lit that suggest that a young man with a 0.22 and no drinking history can RARELY be sloppy drunk without tolerance, but the last three FAS's have agreed that 0.20 and still being conscious is EGREGIOUS.
I will charge a nominal to get and review the documents in a case, but if you have tolerance and hit trigger criteria, you are going to rehab or doing two years of monitored (pre-FAA) abstinence, with "appropriate recovery activities" or you're gone from my books. And I can make it impossible for you to take a drink without me knowing it, whcih does concur with how FAA requires it done.
On these points I think ALL HIMS AMEs are in agreement.
0.20 is HIMS. No two ways about it! There is some literate in the toxicology lit that suggest that a young man with a 0.22 and no drinking history can RARELY be sloppy drunk without tolerance, but the last three FAS's have agreed that 0.20 and still being conscious is EGREGIOUS.
I will charge a nominal to get and review the documents in a case, but if you have tolerance and hit trigger criteria, you are going to rehab or doing two years of monitored (pre-FAA) abstinence, with "appropriate recovery activities" or you're gone from my books. And I can make it impossible for you to take a drink without me knowing it, whcih does concur with how FAA requires it done.
On these points I think ALL HIMS AMEs are in agreement.
I
idiot
Guest
OP here. I did not involve a motor vehicle was so ever. Atty seems very confident that he can't get all of this taken care.
Circuit Flyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 408
- Display Name
Display name:
Circuit Flyer
Are you saying "it did not involve a motor vehicle whatsoever. Atty seems very confident that he CAN get all of this taken care of."?
If not, seek new counsel.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Were you drunk when you typed that?
I
idiot
Guest
As soon as I posted that I knew someone would say that. My bad.
I
idiot
Guest
Seems confident that he CAN get it taken care of. lol
Did he also tell you to stop talking about it online?
I
idiot
Guest
Point taken.