Arrested for DUI - need to be reported?

That's funny. Reading the actual form, I remembered that someone mentioned in another thread that the form specifically asks for the last 3 years, which means there are two years not reportable for those of us on the under-40 3rd Class. Left hand, meet right hand. ;)

Huh?

Last 3 years of medical visits.
What's that got to do with this thread?
 
So, even arrests for which the charges are eventually dropped have to be reported.

Am I the only one who thinks there's something just a wee bit fascist about that?
I do. But I remember filling out an aviation insurance application years ago which had the same question. "Have you ever been arrested?" That meant for anything, not just a motor vehicle incident. I told my boss-at-the-time that I shouldn't have to answer that. He rolled his eyes and said, "Have you ever been arrested? No? Then just fill in that box." :rolleyes:
 
So, even arrests for which the charges are eventually dropped have to be reported.

Am I the only one who thinks there's something just a wee bit fascist about that?

Not sure if fascist is quite the correct term, but yes it's a bit more power than the State ought to have. Innocent unless proven guilty is the normal standard, but that is set aside here. You were arrested mistakenly, so now you must continously re-prove your innocence.

So what kind of proof would be needed here if the record was not expunged?

I think I might still include a yes on my medical with a statement explaining a mistaken arrest, no evidence and expunged record.

OP - Are you a member of AOPA? Excellent question for their medical assistance group.
 

18v (which asks you to check yes or no) states:

History of (1) any arrest(s) and/or conviction(s) involving driving while intoxicated by, while impaired by, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug;


I read this as an AND logic. Arrest And Conviction, then yes. Conviction without arrest, then yes. Arrest but no conviction, then No.
 
So, even arrests for which the charges are eventually dropped have to be reported.
That is correct.

Am I the only one who thinks there's something just a wee bit fascist about that?
I can't speak to that, but I can tell you the FAA got tired of folks working deals with local officials to plead to some lesser offense that didn't say "alcohol" to avoid getting convicted of DUI after being arrested while driving with significant levels of alcohol in their blood. They're pretty well convinced that folks who do that are bad aviation risks, and they have the statistics to back their position.

So, they decided that the only way to identify those folks before they kill or injure someone in an aviation accident is to take note of and look into those arrested for such actions even if they never get found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You get a chance to explain it, and if it really was a bogus arrest, it won't count against you. However, if you really were driving with significant alcohol in your blood, and merely "beat the rap" by some legal maneuvering, they will hold that against you and require appropriate evaluation and action to ensure that you are an acceptable aviation risk.
 
Last edited:
Ed Fred: "History of (1) any arrest involving driving while intoxicated by, while impaired by, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug...." is pretty claer that the arrest requries reporting.

The review of the court papers, however will likely have no consequence to nephew's medical if he has one.
 
. . . .

I can't speak to that, but I can tell you the FAA got tired of folks working deals with local officials to plead to some lesser offense that didn't say "alcohol" to avoid getting convicted of DUI after being arrested while driving with significant levels of alcohol in their blood. They're pretty well convinced that folks who do that are bad aviation risks, and they have the statistics to back their position.

So, they decided that the only way to identify those folks before they kill or injure someone in an aviation accident is to take note of and look into those arrested for such actions even if they never get found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You get a chance to explain it, and if it really was a bogus arrest, it won't count against you. However, if you really were driving with significant alcohol in your blood, and merely "beat the rap" by some legal maneuvering, they will hold that against you and require appropriate evaluation and action to ensure that you are an acceptable aviation risk.

Thank you, Captain Ron.

I understand the FAA's reasoning. I simply disagree with it.

The "deals" defendants cut with prosecutors are the way the system works, and are approved by both sides. Trials are a relative rarity. In addition, any "deal" that resulted in any conviction at all would have to be reported on line 18W, anyway. So that's not what raises my eyebrows.

Rather, what ruffles my Libertarian feathers is requiring information about arrests that led to no conviction at all, regardless of the reason. That seems like a slippery slope, much like many other laws and policies being pushed through today to "protect the children," "fight terrorism," "stop global warming," or whatever else the current cause celebre' may be.

When these policies start contravening the principles set forth in the Constitution, I start hearing a duck of my own quacking.

The day when the government can take actions against innocent people because at some point they were merely accused of a crime is the day when the transformation of the United States into a totalitarian dictatorship will be complete. Yes, I understand that the FAA medical process is an administrative one, not a criminal one. But it still amounts to the government getting a second chance to re-examine an allegation that has already been disposed of by the court system.

That's where my duck starts quacking.

In this nation, we are blessed with a court system that attempts, at least, to dispense justice even-handedly. That's one of the things that distinguishes this nation from banana republics. When we are accused of wrongdoing, we have the right to a fair trial; and I believe that the justice system tries its best to arrive at fair and true decisions.

When the executive branch (of which the FAA is part) starts abrogating to itself the right to ignore the decisions of the judicial system, that is worrisome to me as a Libertarian and as an American. Whatever ends may be achieved in terms of safety are not worth what is being given up in terms of liberty when we allow the government to ignore the decisions of the duly-constituted courts.

Yes, I imagine there are statistics that show that drivers who "beat" a DWI charge are more likely to get another one. I also know that there are statistics showing that children of alcoholics have a higher probability of becoming alcoholics themselves. Does that mean that simply having an alky for a parent is sufficient cause to justify special scrutiny by FAA or other government agencies? Why not? I suspect that the statistical association is even stronger.

In any event, thanks again, Captain Ron. Your answers are always enlightening and fully-explained, and I appreciate that.

-Rich
 
Thank you, Captain Ron.

I understand the FAA's reasoning. I simply disagree with it.
You do indeed still have the right to disagree. Just don't act on that basis unless you don't mind having all your FAA certificates revoked.

In any event, thanks again, Captain Ron. Your answers are always enlightening and fully-explained, and I appreciate that.
Happy to help.
 
Ed Fred: "History of (1) any arrest involving driving while intoxicated by, while impaired by, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug...." is pretty claer that the arrest requries reporting.

The review of the court papers, however will likely have no consequence to nephew's medical if he has one.


How I am reading it, the arrest only needs to be reported if it involves operating a motor vehicle, or alcohol impairment correct?
 
The day when the government can take actions against innocent people because at some point they were merely accused of a crime is the day when the transformation of the United States into a totalitarian dictatorship will be complete.

Rich, not to de-rail the thread, but this sentence has already occurred. The Executive Branch can detain someone indefinitely by branding them a "terrorist". Numerous examples already on the books. No due-process required or given. We are already there.
 
Then you missed the /or part of the sentence.

I did not miss the /OR part any more than others miss the "AND" part.

What purpose does the "AND" have if it is always meant as an "OR".

I read it as "Arrested AND Convicted" OR "Convicted".

If it was meant to be for Arrested only, OR Arrested and Convicted, then it should have read "Convicted And/OR Arrested"...
 
I did not miss the /OR part any more than others miss the "AND" part.

What purpose does the "AND" have if it is always meant as an "OR".

I read it as "Arrested AND Convicted" OR "Convicted".

If it was meant to be for Arrested only, OR Arrested and Convicted, then it should have read "Convicted And/OR Arrested"...

The "and/or" diction is pretty commonly used in statutes, regulations, or contracts in an expansive fashion to mean that either the contraction "and" or the the contraction "or" may be used to satisfy the conditions. If it were otherwise, they could simply say, "convicted." The use of the word "arrested" would not mean anything in context. A primary rule of statutory interpretation is to avoid interpretations that make language superflous.
 
Last edited:
I did not miss the /OR part any more than others miss the "AND" part.

What purpose does the "AND" have if it is always meant as an "OR".

I read it as "Arrested AND Convicted" OR "Convicted".

If it was meant to be for Arrested only, OR Arrested and Convicted, then it should have read "Convicted And/OR Arrested"...
You can dance around this any way you want, but realize that your argument will be unavailing in any legal forum in the land, including before an ALJ or the NTSB. If you fail to report such an arrest without a conviction simply because you think the wording means the lack of a conviction makes it unnecessary to report it, the FAA will eat you, and that action will be upheld before an ALJ, the NTSB, and the US Court of Appeals (and will not even be heard by the US Supreme Court).
 
Rich, not to de-rail the thread, but this sentence has already occurred. The Executive Branch can detain someone indefinitely by branding them a "terrorist". Numerous examples already on the books. No due-process required or given. We are already there.

Actually, now they can kill you.
 
You can dance around this any way you want, but realize that your argument will be unavailing in any legal forum in the land, including before an ALJ or the NTSB. If you fail to report such an arrest without a conviction simply because you think the wording means the lack of a conviction makes it unnecessary to report it, the FAA will eat you, and that action will be upheld before an ALJ, the NTSB, and the US Court of Appeals (and will not even be heard by the US Supreme Court).

Its a bad day in America when one has to fear being right.
 
Well, "arrested and/or convicted" is a rather idiotic choice of phrasing, unless it's become possible to be convicted without having first been arrested.

That the NTSB and/or the courts haven't noticed and/or commented upon on the idiocy and/or ambiguity of the phraseology demonstrates that they are just as idiotic and/or illiterate as the person who wrote and/or approved the phrasing and/or the form itself.

Given the present nanny-state political climate, however, it's also possible that FAA is merely getting their forms in compliance in anticipation of the day when arrests, trials, and so forth are dispensed with, and people are simply convicted upon suspicion. Dispensing with the inconvenience of having to go through such quaint formalities as a formal arrest and trial will not only save the taxpayers money, but it will definitively solve the problem of all those rascals who actually manage to get acquitted. Just think how safe we will all be then!

-Rich
 
If the language skipped the "and" I'm sure someone would be arguing that she could interpret it in the exclusive sense and answer "no" because she hadn't been "arrested or convicted", she'd been both...
 
Well, "arrested and/or convicted" is a rather idiotic choice of phrasing, unless it's become possible to be convicted without having first been arrested.

Of course it is possible to be convicted of a crime without being arrested. They can charge you regardless of whether they take you in to custody and book you. The type of crime involved certainly has some bearing on how likely that is though. I will grant you it's highly unlikely when you are talking about a DUI.
 
If the language skipped the "and" I'm sure someone would be arguing that she could interpret it in the exclusive sense and answer "no" because she hadn't been "arrested or convicted", she'd been both...


That is exactly why they right it this way. It's probably not necessary in this context, but in others, using this specific diction becomes more important.
 
Well, "arrested and/or convicted" is a rather idiotic choice of phrasing, unless it's become possible to be convicted without having first been arrested.

Depending on the specific law, you can certainly be convicted without ever being arrested. You can be cited, charged and convicted of many crimes without ever being taken into physical custody.
 
One needs to really understand the laws in their state if they refuse a sobriety test. Depending on the state, doing so, may make things very nasty for you.
Good point Jesse, Missouri is a no refusal state, if you say no, we get a search warrant and take it anyway.:yesnod:
 
That the NTSB and/or the courts haven't noticed and/or commented upon on the idiocy and/or ambiguity of the phraseology demonstrates that they are just as idiotic and/or illiterate as the person who wrote and/or approved the phrasing and/or the form itself.

No purpose appears to be served by the use of the "and" part of the "and/or" in this case. Using "or" alone would have been unambiguously interpreted in the "inclusive-or" meaning because any attempt to interpret "or" in an "exclusive-or" meaning would yield the absurdity of excluding those who were arrested and then convicted. And a review of the text of 14 CFR finds "or" used exclusively in the inclusive-or sense.

According to citations in the Wikiepedia article on "and/or" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or ) "Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement." The Florida Supreme Court "has held that use of and/or results in a nullity." The article Wikipedia contains some wonderful skewering of the use of "and/or" in legal documents. (While the form uses "and/or" I'm guessing it wont be found anywhere in the text of 14 CFR.)

Also, the word "arrest" does not seem toappear anywhere in section 61.15 or Part 67. I'm not sure how any form, such as 8500, can be considered regulatory (in fact it lists the statutes and regulations that allegedly allow its questions.) Unless form designers get to make up any information request they like, I would think addition of "arrest" in 2008 to that form should have been preceded by a change in the regulations. It would not be the first time an agency over-stepped its authority during changes in its procedures and it took a few years for it to be contested and corrected.
 
Depending on the specific law, you can certainly be convicted without ever being arrested. You can be cited, charged and convicted of many crimes without ever being taken into physical custody.

True, but I was referring to the instant discussion of DWI / DUI, not war crimes, espionage, and the like, where the defendant quite often is never taken into custody.

Although I suppose it could happen, I've never heard of a DUI case being brought against an individual in absentia.

My remaining comments were the product of a moment of Libertarian indignation. :D

-Rich
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top