Arrested for DUI - need to be reported?

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
30,651
Location
Michigan
Display Name
Display name:
White Chocolate
No, I wasn't pulled over, or arrested for DUI, but this is what happened to a nephew of an acquaintance, and thought, "Holy crap this would suck if I had to report it"

Long story short because I don't have all the details:

Acquaintance's nephew does not drink at all, but for whatever reason was driving "erratically" one night and gets pulled over. He gets scared and nervous, and the officer orders him out of the car under suspicion of drinking. He gets even more nervous after he's out of the car, and ends up throwing up when the cop requests him to do the walk the line test. (Unsure if he actually did the walk the line test or not or when exactly the vomiting occurred if the test was done). The officer says, yep, you're drunk and arrests him. The nephew asks for a breathalyzer/blood test, and the officer says, "No need, you're obviously intoxicated." All of this is caught on the dash cam. The next day he's released, charges are dropped, and the officer was fired/dismissed as he had done this sort of thing before.

I looked over the 8500-8 under 19 and 14CFR 61.15 which say, "any conviction(s)." I thought I read somewhere that any arrest involving controlled substances needed to be reported, or am I just misremembering?
 
This will never happen to me because I never talk to the police, and I never ever agree to a field sobriety test. If it doesn't quantitatively measure alcohol content in the blood, I'm not doing it. My right to not do it is protected in the US Constitution under the 5th amendment.
 
steingar said:
This will never happen to me because I never talk to the police, and I never ever agree to a field sobriety test. If it doesn't quantitatively measure alcohol content in the blood, I'm not doing it. My right to not do it is protected in the US Constitution under the 5th amendment.
Click to expand...

Have fun turning in your certificate:

§ 61.16 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test results.

A refusal to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in accordance with §91.17(c) of this chapter, or a refusal to furnish or authorize the release of the test results requested by the Administrator in accordance with §91.17(c) or (d) of this chapter, is grounds for:

(a) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that refusal; or

(b) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
Click to expand...
§ 91.17(c) A crewmember shall do the following:

(1) On request of a law enforcement officer, submit to a test to indicate the alcohol concentration in the blood or breath, when—

(i) The law enforcement officer is authorized under State or local law to conduct the test or to have the test conducted; and

(ii) The law enforcement officer is requesting submission to the test to investigate a suspected violation of State or local law governing the same or substantially similar conduct prohibited by paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
This will never happen to me because I never talk to the police, and I never ever agree to a field sobriety test. If it doesn't quantitatively measure alcohol content in the blood, I'm not doing it. My right to not do it is protected in the US Constitution under the 5th amendment.
Click to expand...

^^^This^^^

---

And I have a tremendous respect for peace officers. Separate issue.
 
He said he wouldn't do a "field sobriety test" (ie. the "walk the line"), not a breath or blood test.
 
JeffDG said:
He said he wouldn't do a "field sobriety test" (ie. the "walk the line"), not a breath or blood test.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but the question was does an arrest need to be reported?
 
I'm not sure Ed. Certainly someone here does know. I do believe that the record of arrest will still show, even though the charges were withdrawn, which he can have expunged.

What is the likely police action should someone refuse a "field sobriety test"? Bring you in for a blood test, which means cuffs and "detainment" I should think.
 
Arrest != Conviction so I would say no.

Dismissed charges = INNOCENT.
 
Anthony said:
I'm not sure Ed. Certainly someone here does know. I do believe that the record of arrest will still show, even though the charges were withdrawn, which he can have expunged.

What is the likely police action should someone refuse a "field sobriety test"? Bring you in for a blood test, which means cuffs and "detainment" I should think.
Click to expand...

I believe in Michigan that refusal to do so results in immediate suspension/revocation of your driver's license, (which would then need to be reported) however that might be refusal to submit to a breathalyzer, and not a touch your nose with your toes while singing Ave Maria backwards in D minor test.
 
At any point, he now does have a "record" even though he is "innocent". Whether it needs to be reported is another story.
 
Anyone who does a "field sobriety test" is a fool. You cannot help yourself talking to the police, and anything you say or do can be used against you in court. Moreover, anything good becomes hearsay.
 
I agree that since the officer was discharged over this, he should pursue having his record expunged.
 
EdFred said:
Ave Maria backwards in D minor test.
Click to expand...

Last summer I was boating with a friend who is dyslexic (diagnosed, he got extra time on his tests etc.. in school) and we get pulled by the wildlife guys.. safety inspection and all that jazz, then the question "how many beers have you had"

He passed the coordination tests with flying colors (he was sober, so we were not worried about the outcome) but when he got to saying his ABC's backwards.. we were laughing so hard I think the cop thought there was something wrong with us.

In my state, you don't have to say a word to the police or submit to a field sobriety test. (ABC's, jumping jacks, cartwheels, whatever) If they take you back to the station and you refuse a breathalyzer (or you refuse a field breathalyzer) that's an automatic DUI.

Recently here in NC a prominent lawyer's wife refused a field sobriety test after an officer claimed to smell alcohol on her breath and was arrested for DUI. The hwy patrolman took her to the station, and tried to lock her up without giving her a breathalyzer or blood test, when she made a scene they breathalyzed her, and she blew a 0.00 They still threw her in the slammer for hours and made her go before a magistrate..
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
It's still an official recognition of "This should never have been added."
Click to expand...

Yes but when the cops pull your tags and see "arrested for DUI, expunged" ....

Its still there. If you get pulled in your new benz, the cops might read this as "I bet this rich bastard's lawyer saved his bacon on that one"
 
Bruce C. Will be along shortly but my read of the medical form is that it asks you of any arrests, which in the situation presented above there was.

If I were in that situation, I would have demanded a blood alcohol test, demand a supervisor, and if all else fails, a call to my lawyer.

At the very least, a written statement along with documentation of the dropped charges sound be included.

I'm not going to touch the issue whether your should submit to a field sobriety test.

Fortunately, the "nephew of an acquaintance" aspect of the story leads one to beleive some details may have been omitted/embellished by the time it got to you.
 
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.
 
jesse said:
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.
Click to expand...

You cannot be forced to do a performance based sobriety test in the US. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that this is a form of self-incrimination and thus is subject to the 5th amendment of the US Constitution. You must submit to a breathalyzer or blood alcohol analysis in most states, failure to do so can have significant consequences.

The local constabulary may go ape**** when you refuse their field sobriety test. They may try and arrest you, throw you in jail, whatever. But they cannot legally charge you with anything for so doing. Your convenience may be jeopardized, but that is often the price of freedom.
 
steingar said:
But they cannot legally charge you with anything for so doing. Your convenience may be jeopardized, but that is often the price of freedom.
Click to expand...


"They" (the police) can do anything they want, and then it is up to you to spend, time, money, reputation, loss of job, etc to prove otherwise. Just because they are WRONG, or doing something illegal doesn't mean they can't or won't do it to you.

See the thread about the Feds taking the guys plane.
 
I did a field sobriety test (walk the line) at a DUI checkpoint. I vaguely remember it being a non-event. Probably the reason I have such a hazy memory of it was that it was at 1 or 2 am.
 
61.15 requires reporting for three situations
1) a conviction for the violation of any Federal or State statute relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or
while under the influence of alcohol or a drug

2) The cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license to operate a motor vehicle for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug

3) The denial of an application for a license to operate a motor vehicle for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.

I assume we can throw #3 out for the purposes of your discussion.

There would have been no conviction, so #1 would be thrown out. Similiar, if you're accused but waiting trial, there is nothing to report yet either.

#2 appears to be worded rather broadly and would only apply if your license if revoked. If an officer stops you because they believe you were drinking and you subsequently trigger some event that causes your license to be revoked, then 61.15 would seem to come into play even if your BAC is 0.0.

I go back and forth on #2, probably because it's really a grey area. Does an officer's suspicion mean the cause of a revocation was related to operation of a motor vehicle? Part of me says yes and part says no and there's really no way to tell which way it goes in a court.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So you don't have to report the conviction on job /school applications.
Click to expand...

The charges were withdrawn (dropped) in this case, so therefore no "conviction". However, from what I can tell there is still a "record" of arrest. The question the OP was asking, is does one have to report an arrest even if charges were withdrawn, and there is NO conviction.
 
Anthony said:
"They" (the police) can do anything they want, and then it is up to you to spend, time, money, reputation, loss of job, etc to prove otherwise. Just because they are WRONG, or doing something illegal doesn't mean they can't or won't do it to you.

See the thread about the Feds taking the guys plane.
Click to expand...

All true. However, again that is the price of freedom. And I must correct my own mistake. The police can charge you with whatever they like, though I suspect unsubstantiated charges will not increase a judges humor or regard for the local constabulary any.
 
EdFred said:
Except an expunged record isn't really expunged. It's still there.
Click to expand...

My arrest, non-moving misdemeaner, was expunged and I reported no arrest record on my application as a result. The aviation police haven't come swooping down in black helocopters as a result.
 
Last edited:
My father was asked to name the presidents going backwards from the current one. About the time he got to Warren Harding they gave up thinking he might have been impaired.
 
flyingron said:
My father was asked to name the presidents going backwards from the current one. About the time he got to Warren Harding they gave up thinking he might have been impaired.
Click to expand...

Off the tops of my head I only made it as far as FDR, and forgot about Hoover being between him and Coolidge, I hope they wouldn't take me in for that.
 
flyingron said:
My father was asked to name the presidents going backwards from the current one. About the time he got to Warren Harding they gave up thinking he might have been impaired.
Click to expand...

Can I do Prime Ministers of Canada instead?
 
EdFred said:
Fair enough, but the question was does an arrest need to be reported?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does -- on your next medical application. This is more or less clearly spelled out in the instructions for the 8500-8. Only if the arrest results in a motor vehicle action as defined in 61.15 must it be reported to Civil Aviation Security within 60 days of the action/conviction per 61.15, and an arrest without further action is not a "motor vehicle action".
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it does -- on your next medical application. This is more or less clearly spelled out in the instructions for the 8500-8. Only if the arrest results in a motor vehicle action as defined in 61.15 must it be reported to Civil Aviation Security within 60 days of the action/conviction per 61.15, and an arrest without further action is not a "motor vehicle action".
Click to expand...

Is there an updated instructions? The ones here:
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/pdfs/FAA_Form_8500-8_Medical_App.pdf
don't say arrest, only conviction or administrative action.
 
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. ;)
 
Remember, whenever these issues come up, there are two issues.

1) whether you must affirmatively report it within 60 days, and

2) whether you must disclose on your next medical certificate.
​
This is obviously not a "motor vehicle action," as defined under 61.15(c) (no conviction, license cancellation, suspension, revocation, or denial), so you don't need to report under that provision.

The medical application, Question 18 asks:

Medical History -- HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH, HAD, OR DO YOU PRESENTLY HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? Answer "yes" or "no" for every condition listed below. In the EXPLANATIONS box below, you may note "PREVIOUSLY REPORTED, NO CHANGE" only if the explanation of the condition was listed on a previous application for an airman medical certfificate and there has been no change in your condition. See Instructions Page

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; or (2) history of any arrest(s), and/or conviction(s), and/or administrative action(s) involving an offense(s) which resulted in the denial, suspension, cancellation, or revocation of driving privileges or which results in attendance at an educational or rehabilitation program.

​
This is a tough one. Arguably, it did not involve driving while intoxicated, because the charges were dropped. But, if all the application asked for were instances where intoxication were proven in a court of law, it would only ask for convictions. I could see the FAA making a stink if only to preserve their ability to check the accuracy of your responses. I would probably err on the side of caution and disclose. I suspect that the additional details provided that the charges were dropped due to the fact that you were not actually drinking would pretty much be the end of the matter.

If it makes you feel any better, the instructions say that after your initial disclosure, on all future applications, you can simply state: "PREVIOUSLY REPORTED, NO CHANGE" in the explanation box. But be sure to check the instructions on future medical applications, because those could be changed in the future.
 
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?

-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