Charged With DUI When I Wasn’t Driving

flyingron said:
He doesn't have to have seen it. But in this case, there isn't much of a case without it. The FSTs (which everybody thinks they pass) is often used to provide this evidence (it also, in some states, provide the probable cause for the arrest and compelled chemical test).
Click to expand...

Which is why nobody in their right mind would submit to an FST or a roadside breathalyzer (though a lot of folks are utterly informed regarding their rights and obligations when interacting with policy). If the officer has probable cause, he/she will simply detain/arrest and take to the station for a proper breathalyzer or blood test (which is what's actually required by the implied consent laws; most (or all) don't apply to PBTs, but only the "official" ones at the station. Officers request FSTs and PBTs to develop evidence; you don't have to help them do that.
 
There is a a lot of discussion here about 61.15, and what the consequences of a conviction means going forward, but no one has mentioned 61.16, which is the OP’s first concern. While many DUI lawyers will advise you to refuse the breathalyzer, that is only to beat the legal charges. As pilots, we don’t have the privilege of refusing the test without risking a suspension of your certificate. The fact is, you were asked by law enforcement to test and you refused. The FAA does not look kindly on that.
 
tsts4 said:
I suspect it really depends on the circumstances and the jurisdiction. Not proud of this, but my son was pulled over for DUI in SC last year and his lawyer got it reduced to reckless driving.
Click to expand...
Thats no dropping charges and wouldnt make much difference in the faa part.
 
I knew a guy who was plastered when he went out to get cigarettes at 2am. Wrapped his car around a telephone pole about 2 blocks from his house, ran home, and was in bed, still drunk, when the cops showed up 15 minutes later. Claimed the car was stolen. The cops knew otherwise, of course, but couldn't prove it and dutifully took the stolen car report. As they left, one of them turned around, smiled, and said, "you know, most car thieves don't bother locking the car when they run off."
 
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes. I suspect 4 or 5 was being kind or heavy pours if someone called and said you were driving erratic AND you refused to blow.
 
Last edited:
Anon4this said:
One very important point: even though the arresting officer may have retained possession of your physical license, the suspension is an administrative process. In most states you have a certain number of days to request an administrative hearing to challenge the suspension, and if you don't do so, the suspension goes into effect (triggering the required report to the FAA and whatever consequences come of that).

If you do request the hearing within the allotted time, the license is not legally suspended (and thus nothing is reportable to the FAA) until the hearing takes place, which could be a month or more out. The hearing is normally a rubber-stamp affair that does not afford the same rights as the actual trial (which will come much, much later). But this case has some unique facts. How does "implied consent" work in your state if by all accounts the defendant was not driving at the time consent was requested? Was the arrest even lawful? (In many states, police can't arrest for misdemeanors they didn't witness without a warrant.)

Step 1 is immediately retaining a DUI attorney in your state who can file the request for the administrative hearing in a timely fashion. He or she can't help you with the FAA, but if you can win the administrative hearing and avoid the suspension, and also eventually have the criminal charge dismissed (or pled down to a charge not involving alcohol), you will have nothing to report to the FAA.
Click to expand...
In most states you signed a form when you got your drivers license agreeing to provide a chemical test when requested. If you refuse, officer simply completes a form stating you were read an implied consent warning and refused. The suspension is administered by BMV and not reviewable by a court before the suspension is active.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
In most states you signed a form when you got your drivers license agreeing to provide a chemical test when requested. If you refuse, officer simply completes a form stating you were read an implied consent warning and refused. The suspension is administered by BMV and not reviewable by a court, even if you are found not guilty.
Click to expand...
How about not having a license then? When you get pulled over you get a driving without a license charge and then you’re not opting into the chemical test?
 
Salty said:
I agree, of course, but I believe credit is due if someone uses new data to make the right decision. He made the wrong decision, got more data, and corrected his mistake. This kind of behavior should be rewarded not punished.
Click to expand...

sorry. I give zero credit for this kind of behavior for drunk driving. sorry. You drive drunk - you dont deserve to have a license. period. F that. have lost friends to drunk drivers. The act happened - lets not whitewash it. I dont know why we are always trying to lower the standard here - oh its ok. Oh he did the right thing. Bull ****. He drove drunk and was lucky no innocent person got hurt. That doesnt deserve sympathy or a pass. Your "personal liberties" or whatever doesnt trump stupidity.
 
Salty said:
I agree, of course, but I believe credit is due if someone uses new data to make the right decision. He made the wrong decision, got more data, and corrected his mistake. This kind of behavior should be rewarded not punished.
Click to expand...
A judge would presumably be free to reward this behavior.
 
I think it’s important to note there are two distinct conversations happening in this thread.

One is the criminal case regarding driving under the influence.

The second is the FAA administrative process that will also occur.

They have the same causal event but that’s about where they stop having any bearing on each other.

I personally know an individual in lifetime HIMS monitoring with a dismissal on the legal case.

Criminal law matters not when it comes to being a Subject of an administrative agency.
 
Last edited:
Look at the bright side. You didn't kill anybody on your way to the gas station.

.


.



I'm serious. Five drinks before getting into your car is like carrying a cocked and loaded pistol and then not knowing where you left it.
 
Crashnburn said:
Most likely, but it doesn't/shouldn't rise to driving drunk unless you were actually driving.
Click to expand...

This argument is like saying you didn’t rob the bank because you left and were just walking down the street carrying a bag of cash, minding your own business.
 
Dana said:
A smart shyster might be able to make the case that it can't be proved that you weren't drinking until after you parked the car….
Click to expand...

I find it so interesting that people refer to lawyers as “shysters,” and yet when they need help in situations such as this one, the recommendation is to call a lawyer. Sorta like calling a doc a “quack” for saving someone from dying after they did something stupid, causing potentially fatal consequences (lung cancer from smoking, for example).
 
DaleB said:
Indeed. Drink four of my cocktails and you likely won't be able to walk.
Click to expand...
I was going to say the same. My home-made martinis have about 4oz vodka each. After two I am not even going for a walk.
My favorite watering hole only puts 3 oz in a Martini. I can still walk after 3 of those, but I'm not driving.

I love Uber. My wife is a pilot and she won't drive even if she only had one small glass of wine. And if she knows she is going to be driving, she won't even have that.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
I find it so interesting that people refer to lawyers as “shysters,” and yet when they need help in situations such as this one, the recommendation is to call a lawyer. Sorta like calling a doc a “quack” for saving someone from dying after they did something stupid, causing potentially fatal consequences (lung cancer from smoking, for example).
Click to expand...
I often hear that everyone hates lawyers. Until they need one.
Fortunately, I've only ever needed lawyers for contract law. And I'm sure they've paid for themselves in the long run.
 
bradg33 said:
I'm not offering judgment either way on what OP did, but I find the legal side of this fascinating as it varies from the "normal" DUI case.
Click to expand...
Yes, the “normal” DUI is a traffic stop or accident. But there have been plenty of not driving at the time cases. Some with the driver in the parked car, sometimes not.

It’s been a very long time since my last DUI case (my last criminal trial, actually) but I watched DUIs go from difficult to prosecute to difficult to defend.
 
What makes me wonder is how badly do you have to be driving to realize, while drunk, that you shouldn't be driving; and just how badly do you have to be driving to make a gas station attendant call the police on you? Especially since this presumably took place rather late at night?
 
JOhnH said:
I often hear that everyone hates lawyers. Until they need one.
Fortunately, I've only ever needed lawyers for contract law. And I'm sure they've paid for themselves in the long run.
Click to expand...
I hated lawyers when I needed them.

Of course, @midlifeflyer is the exception to the rule… :biggrin:
 
Mahneuvers said:
To what do you attribute that? Did laws change?
Click to expand...
Well, penalties increased and illegal BAC levels lowered. But those were the result of a change in public attitudes. "There but for the grace of god go I" was the prevalent attitude in the legal system, from police and prosecutors to judges and the people on juries. That made enforcement lax and defense verdicts common. Depending on the jurisdiction, typical first offense deal was a non-conviction slap on the wrist and a warning to "go and sin no more."

A number of factors led to the change. One of the turning points was a Massachusetts case in the 1980s (Irwin v Town of Ware). Drunk driver coming from a bar at 2 am stopped by small town police. They let him continue driving home with just a warning. He ended up killing three people in a head-on collision, including himself. At around the same time, Mothers Against Drink Driving was formed. Between MADD's efforts and cases like Irwin, societal attitudes changed at what I thought was a surprisingly rapid pace. And, as usual in the US, no middle ground. Over-tolerance straight to Zero Tolerance.

Think about it outside driving. Drunks - Dean Martin, Foster Brooks, Dudley Moore, Otis in Mayberry - were funny. Some will say some of their routines stand the test of time, but I doubt it would work well for someone starting out today.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
...Over-tolerance straight to Zero Tolerance....
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thorough response. Thread drift I know, but, I've thought more and more recently, given the number of laws on the books, if someone/something wants to come after you, there are plenty of laws for them to use as means to do so. As opposed to being black/white, right/wrong, it seems there's a lot of play in the legal system which opens it up for manipulation. I know, I'm naive for thinking it was ever anything different.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well, penalties increased and illegal BAC levels lowered. But those were the result of a change in public attitudes. "There but for the grace of god go I" was the prevalent attitude in the legal system, from police and prosecutors to judges and the people on juries. That made enforcement lax and defense verdicts common. Depending on the jurisdiction, typical first offense deal was a non-conviction slap on the wrist and a warning to "go and sin no more."

A number of factors led to the change. One of the turning points was a Massachusetts case in the 1980s (Irwin v Town of Ware). Drunk driver coming from a bar at 2 am stopped by small town police. They let him continue driving home with just a warning. He ended up killing three people in a head-on collision, including himself. At around the same time, Mothers Against Drink Driving was formed. Between MADD's efforts and cases like Irwin, societal attitudes changed at what I thought was a surprisingly rapid pace. And, as usual in the US, no middle ground. Over-tolerance straight to Zero Tolerance.

Think about it outside driving. Drunks - Dean Martin, Foster Brooks, Dudley Moore, Otis in Mayberry - were funny. Some will say some of their routines stand the test of time, but I doubt it would work well for someone starting out today.
Click to expand...
this is actually a really good synopsis and write up and kind of the way it has or is going.. . Im going to say that Ive been going from some level of tolerance to zero tolerance over that 30-40 year time span as well. Its just gotten to the point that I think the risks and potential life changing/ending consequences as a result of it - just make it intolerable to me. So I have zero tolerance for it anymore. If a drunk driver kills someone else - Im all for ending that persons reasonable career/life and jailtime. I have zero sympathy for that. If a pilot is caught drunk before flying - f them. Ground his ass permanently. Not sure why the union would defend them to try and get their wings back. We all have choices we can make - and if it involves injuring/killing or potentially injuring / killing someone because you're intoxicated or drugs - sorry - not interested. Lets raise the standard of personal responsibility rather than lowering it.
 
bflynn said:
Only old men REALLY get the intensity of this joke.
Click to expand...
But you dont even remember it these days. They use the Michael Jackson drug Propofol now. . which means you are kind of in/out but dont remember a damn thing anymore. . just wake up totally restful from it. But its the /THOUGHT/ that is mind disturbing. . . .
 
**** like this is absolutely why I make it a hard rule for myself that one drink and I don’t drive for at least 2-3 hours. Any more than 1 drink and I’m not driving for the night. My tolerance can vary wildly and there’s no point in risking. I live in a city and we have public transit and Ubers for a reason. When I’m in the boonies, if there is no DD, I’m not drinking. It’s a system that works and I’ve never once had to ask myself “am I good to drive?” which, like hypoxia, is a question that is harder to answer due to the impairment.
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
I find it so interesting that people refer to lawyers as “shysters,” and yet when they need help in situations such as this one, the recommendation is to call a lawyer.
Click to expand...
There are lawyers, and there are shysters. Attorneys who specialize in drunk driving cases generally fall into the latter category.
 
Dana said:
There are lawyers, and there are shysters. Attorneys who specialize in drunk driving cases generally fall into the latter category.
Click to expand...
Depends on whether they advertise or not. When I was still doing them, when I quoted my fee, a potential client might say, "but I see that so-and-so advertises a flat fee of $500." I'd reply, "Oh, you want the $500 defense. Sure. I can plead you guilty without looking at the file for that."
 
A friend received a DUI after refusing all tests. Officer's observation was all the judge needed. Wasn't reduced to a lesser charge. Washington state is talking about reducing it to .04%.
 
Anthem said:
But you dont even remember it these days. They use the Michael Jackson drug Propofol now. . which means you are kind of in/out but dont remember a damn thing anymore. . just wake up totally restful from it. But its the /THOUGHT/ that is mind disturbing. . . .
Click to expand...

Wake up as restful as anyone that just had a cattle prod stuck up the business end... :yesnod:
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
I find it so interesting that people refer to lawyers as “shysters,” and yet when they need help in situations such as this one, the recommendation is to call a lawyer.
Click to expand...
It's because out legal system is setup so the only way you have any chance of winning a case is by paying a lawyer. People don't like having to pay vast sums of money to someone just to defend themselves. Lawyers aren't cheap and most people would prefer to not use one but they have successfully setup the court system over decades to make it so you have no choice. That's why many refer to them as shysters. They rigged the system to take your money for something that you have no say over.
 
Back
Top