FAA approch to dual-DUI

steingar said:
If it didn't they wouldn't made such a big hairy deal out of it.
Click to expand...
A case more than 30 years ago imposing liability on a Massachusetts town for police who let a drunk driver go who then killed a father and 2 children and the movement from extreme tolerance to the current zero tolerance attitude might have had a little to do with it.
 
Brad Z said:
...and insurance companies. More DUI arrests helps identify their potentially highest risk customers, and if nothing else charge them accordingly.
Click to expand...
They charge more, but it's unclear if the mainline insurers make any more money as they are recouping the costs of insuring such people.

There is a cottage hard luck insurance industry that deals with SR-22 policies for people who aren't likely insurable by other carriers (DUI, previously driven uninsured, driving while suspended...).
 
Omalley1537 said:
Tim, I’m curious how you came to the conclusion that DUI’s generate revenue for the PD.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney so some of my below terminology may not be correct but it should be pretty accurate description "in layman's terms." I do have a good buddy who is an attorney and he handles a few DWIs.

I have no idea how it works in any other state but in Missouri a DWI (still the official term I think) is a two pronged attack.
1. the actual ticket is prosecuted by the local county prosecutor.
2. then there's an "administrative action" that's handled by the state DMV (dept of motor vehicles). Your license is suspended and you don't get it back until the "administrative action" is fully satisfied.

#2 was created back in the '80s or '90s as a result of a M.A.D.D. campaign. The local prosecutors were plea bargaining too many DWIs down to lesser offenses in their opinion and it was making them M.A.D.D. So #2 was instituted.

It's my understanding that it's very difficult to get out of #2. There has to be very egregious police mishandling of the evidence or the stop, or some other very blatant anomaly to beat that rap. So you're pretty much screwed there.

#1, however, is still in the hands of the local prosecutors and it's still a relatively common practice for it to be plea bargained to a lesser offense in exchange for paying a much larger fine (bribe) than the "face value" of the ticket to the local government.

You still have "an administrative DWI" on your record but not the ticket. What good that does? I don't know, but it seems to be frequently done.

As an aside, I'm not so sure that #2 doesn't make the local prosecutors more willing to negotiate because they know that the state has the "big hammer" that you won't get out of.

Also, as you alluded to, local prosecutors also use speeding tickets to extort money. You can pay the "face value" fine and have the speeding ticket go on your record or pay 4...5...6 times the fine and get a "loud muffler" citation which, of course, is a "no point violation."

I, for some reason, can't seem to keep good mufflers on my vehicles and I'm occasionally bad about keeping my lights working! ;)

Again, I'm no attorney but this is my understanding of the present Missouri DWI law and proceedings...fortunately I have no first hand experience to confirm this. Not sure if we have any MO attorneys here or not, if so, it'd be nice to hear their take.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
A case more than 30 years ago imposing liability on a Massachusetts town for police who let a drunk driver go who then killed a father and 2 children and the movement from extreme tolerance to the current zero tolerance attitude might have had a little to do with it.
Click to expand...
Liability in domestic violence has had the same effect. At my old job it was a standing order from the sheriff that all parties in a domestic were hauled down to the magistrate where they would all testify along with the responding officer. Then the magistrate would decide who went to jail.
 
Late one Saturday night I was on a ride-along with a cop buddy. We were going one direction on a narrow 2-lane in a 20mph zone and car going the opposite direction was doing 40. He hit the lights and made a 3pt U-turn. While we were doing that, the other driver made a couple turns in a half-hearted attempt to get away. We caught up and the driver pulled over. Turns out she was head home after a "finished with last final before college graduation party".

She had alcohol on her breath. My buddy talked to her a few minutes (I think the driver has to be under some amount of observation), then asked for a field sobriety test. She *almost* passed all the tests. Another officer showed up with a portable breathalyzer, and she blew right at the limit. Might have been 0.08 at the time, but whatever the limit was she was right on it.

He gave her the lecture about gettibg a DUI and having to report that on job applicationsfor the rest of her life, then gave her a speeding ticket and let her call a friend to drive her home. By then she was crying pretty good.

After her friends drove her away, he said it wasn't going to be worth the trouble of a DUI. By the time he could get her to the station, start the paperwork, wait however long the observation period was, and get her on the main breathalyzer, she probably would have been under the limit.
 
Brad Z said:
Are we talking people who have been arrested for a DUI or the rest of us who haven't? You only get a DUI if you've driven under the influence.
Click to expand...

Ummm... Yes, I already understood you only get a DUI if you've driven under the influence, but thank you for trying to clarify that for me! ;-)

I don't really want to create a lengthy post describing how I arrived at my opinion or defending it, suffice to say that's my opinion. I understand your opinion is different and that's fine. For the record, the only motor vehicle infractions I have had were two speeding tickets and those were over 30 years ago. I cannot imagine a future situation where I will ever be convicted of a DUI, but if such an event were to occur, it wouldn't be because I'm an alcoholic because that is simply not the case.
 
idahoflier said:
Ummm... Yes, I already understood you only get a DUI if you've driven under the influence
Click to expand...

Actually, you can get a DUI without ever turning the key. In many states, being drunk and sitting in the driver's seat is justification to prove that you were attempting to drive and results in a DUI. I think in some states that extends to sleeping in the back seat.

I've heard the advice to put the keys in the trunk as proof that you intend not to drive. Of course that assumes a remote trunk release in the car.
 
bflynn said:
Actually, you can get a DUI without ever turning the key. In many states, being drunk and sitting in the driver's seat is justification to prove that you were attempting to drive and results in a DUI. I think in some states that extends to sleeping in the back seat.

I've heard the advice to put the keys in the trunk as proof that you intend not to drive. Of course that assumes a remote trunk release in the car.
Click to expand...

Yes, very true, has been that way since the early '90's... Regarding the trunk, I don't think modern automobiles will let you lock the keys in the trunk, but even if they did, with key less FOB's that probably wouldn't keep you from being charged anyway...
 
steingar said:
If it didn't they wouldn't made such a big hairy deal out of it.
Click to expand...

Maybe it has something to do with mutilated bodies and devastated families.

Here's what the CDC has to say about it.

"In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver."
 
Since Uber, there are no more DUI's in the built up areas. Still the same amount fo drinking going on. It's just in the boondocks where they'll continue to get caught. So, the conclusion is, if you have a habit and want to fly under the radar, move to where there's Uber service! ;)
 
SCCutler said:
Dr. Bruce, interesting narrative.

Granted, I am just a lawyer, and not a physician, but we see things like this here from time to time as well. Whatever else 25 years of practice is taught me, it is that a prospective client who is not interested in hearing the truth, or accepting your experience-based counsel, is probably a client you don't want.

So I send them down the road with my best wishes.

I have had much more than normal exposure to people fighting addiction, and I do not believe the FAA is much out of line in their approach, because people like the one you have described our likely to be a problem, both as to addiction and resultant impaired operation, and an attitude of invincibility, with a healthy dose of contempt for authority thrown in as a bonus.

In any event, whether the FAA is right or wrong in how they approach this issue is, for this discussion irrelevant, for (to use one of my least-favorite phrases), "it is what it is." If someone doesn't want to hear your carefully-crafted analysis and advice, advice born of experience and authority, they have told you a great deal about themselves, and I think you can predict their chances of success reliably.

Thanks for all you do, and fly safe!
Click to expand...
I have begun signing some of my email replies with "the skies belong to the crown".

It is what it is.
 
idahoflier said:
...but I will concede that anyone that has been convicted of two DUI's likely has a problem...
Click to expand...

How often does a person who drives drunk actually get caught? Two convictions (or even one) probably represents many times having driven drunk. My dad back in the day when he still drank would come home wasted many times over the years, but never got a DUI. Yes, a problem.
 
stratobee said:
Since Uber, there are no more DUI's in the built up areas. Still the same amount fo drinking going on. It's just in the boondocks where they'll continue to get caught. So, the conclusion is, if you have a habit and want to fly under the radar, move to where there's Uber service! ;)
Click to expand...

Had an uber driver ticketed for blocking the street, appealed and lost. So many Ubers showed up at 2AM they block several streets. City is going to try shutting down one lane for drivers.
 
BrianNC said:
How often does a person who drives drunk actually get caught? Two convictions (or even one) probably represents many times having driven drunk. My dad back in the day when he still drank would come home wasted many times over the years, but never got a DUI. Yes, a problem.
Click to expand...

Agree, but I don't think you can say that about someone with one DUI. Everyone can make a mistake and everybody I know that has had a DUI wouldn't drive after consuming alcohol again...
 
idahoflier said:
Agree, but I don't think you can say that about someone with one DUI. Everyone can make a mistake and everybody I know that has had a DUI wouldn't drive after consuming alcohol again...
Click to expand...

I just have a hard time believing that anyone that has 1 DUI, that they were caught the first time they did it.
 
BrianNC said:
I just have a hard time believing that anyone that has 1 DUI, that they were caught the first time they did it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But if you start down the path believing that everyone convicted of a DUI must have been driving intoxicated multiple times prior then its not much of a leap to think most or all of us are driving intoxicated, we just haven't been caught yet. And if that's the case then EVERYONE should go through a HIMS evaluation to prove they don't have an alcohol problem prior to obtaining a medical certificate.
 
idahoflier said:
Perhaps. But if you start down the path believing that everyone convicted of a DUI must have been driving intoxicated multiple times prior then its not much of a leap to think most or all of us are driving intoxicated, we just haven't been caught yet. And if that's the case then EVERYONE should go through a HIMS evaluation to prove they don't have an alcohol problem prior to obtaining a medical certificate.
Click to expand...
Don't give them any ideas. It's already bad enough.

This is going back many years, but I heard a probation officer say about a first offender, "he's an alcoholic. He denies being an alcoholic. The first sign of alcoholism is denial." IOW, everyone, at least everyone who he saw for an alcohol offense, is an alcoholic. If you admit it you are. If you deny it you are. And, yes, the probation officer was a recovering alcoholic.
 
midlifeflyer said:
This is going back many years, but I heard a probation officer say about a first offender, "he's an alcoholic. He denies being an alcoholic. The first sign of alcoholism is denial." IOW, everyone, at least everyone who he saw for an alcohol offense, is an alcoholic. If you admit it you are. If you deny it you are. And, yes, the probation officer was a recovering alcoholic.
Click to expand...

Well, I drink a beer or two about every other month, either at home or sometimes in a restaurant when someone else is driving. I deny being an alcoholic.
 
idahoflier said:
Perhaps. But if you start down the path believing that everyone convicted of a DUI must have been driving intoxicated multiple times prior then its not much of a leap to think most or all of us are driving intoxicated, we just haven't been caught yet. And if that's the case then EVERYONE should go through a HIMS evaluation to prove they don't have an alcohol problem prior to obtaining a medical certificate.
Click to expand...

It's about risk. Who's more likely to be the alcoholic? The pilot with no DUIs? With one DUI? With multiple DUIs?
 
Brad Z said:
It's about risk. Who's more likely to be the alcoholic? The pilot with no DUIs? With one DUI? With multiple DUIs?
Click to expand...
Other than perhaps the multiple offender who at least shows personal control issues, I don't know the answer to your question. If you do, do you have a data source or is it speculation based on so-called "common sense?"
 
midlifeflyer said:
Don't give them any ideas. It's already bad enough.

This is going back many years, but I heard a probation officer say about a first offender, "he's an alcoholic. He denies being an alcoholic. The first sign of alcoholism is denial." IOW, everyone, at least everyone who he saw for an alcohol offense, is an alcoholic. If you admit it you are. If you deny it you are. And, yes, the probation officer was a recovering alcoholic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that kind of thinking is so brain-dead, because it ignores the fact that non-alcoholics would also deny being alcoholics.
 
BrianNC said:
I just have a hard time believing that anyone that has 1 DUI, that they were caught the first time they did it.
Click to expand...

Very true. The chances of getting caught the one and only time you drive drunk is probably pretty slim unless you have an accident. Even then, if it is just a fender bender with no other cars involved, there is still a good chance of getting home without being caught. I’ve seen it done. I’d venture to guess that 90%+ of first time DUI arrests were drivers who had done it multiple times before but got home unnoticed.

Repeated exposure increases risk, both getting caught and hurting or killing someone. Why risk it at all?
 
SkyDog58 said:
... I’d venture to guess that 90%+ of first time DUI arrests were drivers who had done it multiple times before but got home unnoticed
Click to expand...

In order to make that determination, we would have to know what percentage of driving-while-intoxicated incidents result in getting caught.

Repeated exposure increases risk, both getting caught and hurting or killing someone. Why risk it at all?
Click to expand...

True.
 
Matthew said:
After her friends drove her away, he said it wasn't going to be worth the trouble of a DUI. By the time he could get her to the station, start the paperwork, wait however long the observation period was, and get her on the main breathalyzer, she probably would have been under the limit.
Click to expand...

I have a family member who was an officer in Memphis for nearly 20 years. I asked him once about DUIs, and he said he actually hated pulling someone over for it. He said it would tie him up for a huge chunk of his shift due to doing the sobriety tests, paperwork, having to call someone for transport, etc. He said they had DUI a task force that would be out and doing nothing but DUIs so he tried to leave it to them to handle when he could.
 
Related question, kinda: What if you have a single dui from >15 years ago where you blew under the 0.15 bogey at the time of arrest, but over 0.15 later back at the station? Where does that fall on the number of hoops required to jump through? Can the AME issue or has to go to OKC, etc...?
 
bflynn said:
Well, I drink a beer or two about every other month, either at home or sometimes in a restaurant when someone else is driving. I deny being an alcoholic.
Click to expand...

Go see Doc Bruce - he'll feel up your liver and tell you flat out if you abuse alcohol - or somehow or other have cirrhosis . . .
 
Tech said:
Related question, kinda: What if you have a single dui from >15 years ago where you blew under the 0.15 bogey at the time of arrest, but over 0.15 later back at the station? Where does that fall on the number of hoops required to jump through? Can the AME issue or has to go to OKC, etc...?
Click to expand...
Far as I know, the roadside test isn't "official", it's the one that gives them the ability to take you to the station for the "official" record.
 
midlifeflyer said:
This is going back many years, but I heard a probation officer say about a first offender, "he's an alcoholic. He denies being an alcoholic. The first sign of alcoholism is denial." IOW, everyone, at least everyone who he saw for an alcohol offense, is an alcoholic. If you admit it you are. If you deny it you are. And, yes, the probation officer was a recovering alcoholic.
Click to expand...
bflynn said:
Well, I drink a beer or two about every other month, either at home or sometimes in a restaurant when someone else is driving. I deny being an alcoholic.
Click to expand...

Not saying I agree with his assessment, but the qualifier to what he said was about a first offender, meaning they had been caught for DUI. It wasn't a general statement about anyone who drinks.
 
Palmpilot said:
In order to make that determination, we would have to know what percentage of driving-while-intoxicated incidents result in getting caught.
Click to expand...

Obviously. But we don't have that data. But the point is that odds are that anyone caught doing a certain thing, that isn't the first time they've done it. The odds are a person usually isn't going to get caught the first time. Because of this, the fact they got caught increases the odds it isn't the first time they drove drunk. That's just 'common sense' about odds.
 
BrianNC said:
Obviously. But we don't have that data. But the point is that odds are that anyone caught doing a certain thing, that isn't the first time they've done it. The odds are a person usually isn't going to get caught the first time. Because of this, the fact they got caught increases the odds it isn't the first time they drove drunk. That's just 'common sense' about odds.
Click to expand...
Ah I knew that euphemism for 'biased preconception' was bound to come up at some point.
 
BrianNC said:
Did some Googling:

"An average drunk driver has driven drunk over 80 times before first arrest." (CDC)

Many other sites other than the one I posted have the same statistic.

https://www.bactrack.com/blogs/expert-center/35040645-dui-statistics
Click to expand...
That statement, even if accurate, still does not lead to the conclusion that everyone who gets a DUI is an alcoholic. Actually, its use by that company marketing personal alcohol trackers, suggests the opposite. They are selling a product to help an alcoholic "make better decisions while drinking"? Really? To the extent they have a market, seems like it's for the non-alcoholic who goes to too many parties.

Here's my bias. I had a front seat to the societal change from "there but for the grace of god go i" tolerance to the current zero tolerance viewpoint. I also probably dealt with a larger variety of DUI offenders than the average guy. Some alcoholics. Some not. As usual, our society avoids the happy medium and goes to the extremes on both ends, painting people with a broad brush rather than individually (all in the name of "common sense" of course).

Well, I guess that's enough useless ranting to start the day :)
 
Tech said:
Related question, kinda: What if you have a single dui from >15 years ago where you blew under the 0.15 bogey at the time of arrest, but over 0.15 later back at the station? Where does that fall on the number of hoops required to jump through? Can the AME issue or has to go to OKC, etc...?
Click to expand...
Looking for loopholes is not the answer nor the appropriate approach. Contact Dr Bruce.
 
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