Pilot arrested for DUI blows .00

DFH65

DFH65

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
2,629
Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
Not sure if this has been done before didn't know what to search for. Long video.

Short version is guy is arrested for DUI in Colorado. Submits to a breathalyzer and blows .00 cop coerces him to get a blood test because the department is incented heavily to make DUI arrests. Blood test comes back negative as well. Video mentions the FAA at 15:10. Would love to know how this ended up. It is really unfortunate that the guy couldn't find an independent lab that would give him a blood test.

 
Wow I saw that video and man, that guy was really smart and didn't panic. I'm usually on the polices' side but this officer should be prosecuted and fired. Shutting off the audio should be illegal and automatically charged with evidence tampering. I can understand why you would want a blood test since you can be impaired with other medications but this officer just was just on a fishing expedition. A lot would have been justifiable but he shot himself in the foot with saying that the guy reeked of alcohol. I think once the driver heard that, he probably knew he should just shut up and go with the flow.
 
www.pilotsofamerica.com

Talk about out of control...?!

While looking for the text of 18v, I stumbled across this recent lawsuit filed by a pilot who was harrassed and falsely accused of DUI. Harris-Elias-vs.-Loveland-PD-and-Officer-William-Gates.pdf Holy cow, how much misconduct can one officer commit?!
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com
 
Elias has two federal suits going, one against Loveland and the other on Fort Collins alleging the DUI incentives have led to countless arrests without cause.
 
flyingron said:
Elias has two federal suits going, one against Loveland and the other on Fort Collins alleging the DUI incentives have led to countless arrests without cause.
Click to expand...

There was also Conn County, GA Sherrif’s department’s ‘Drug Whisperer’.

www.11alive.com

The Drug Whisperer: Federal appeals court to decide case of sober drivers arrested for DUI

The Reveal investigative team uncovered DUI arrests of sober drivers in Cobb County, arrests now under the microscope of the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals.
www.11alive.com

On appeal at the 11th Circuit, judgement was in favor of Cobb County. It didn’t help defendant’s counsel openly lied in court, denied it, had the record read back, and was subsequently admonished for lying.

law.justia.com

Katelyn Ebner, et al. v. Cobb County, et al., No. 20-11318 (11th Cir. 2021)

Katelyn Ebner, et al. v. Cobb County, et al., No. 20-11318 (11th Cir. 2021) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
law.justia.com law.justia.com
 
Lots of focus on “preventing” a crime (that may or may not be happening).

Not much focus on prosecuting crimes that actually occurred.
 
What can he expect from the FAA for such a situation?

Looked up his pilot cert, he got an IR ASEL cert with a date of 06/23 and a 3rd class medical. The video discusses inhibiting career aspects, but it doesn't seem super likely he'd be worried about it for a career move, so I don't know if I trust the videos statement on the possible FAA effects.

Edit: The arrest was in 2022 so clearly the FAA hasn't kept a suspension on his license.
 
You guys might want to read the implied consent law in your state. The officer may administer tests. In most states that includes as many tests as the officer wants including several breath tests urine and blood.
 
Clip4 said:
You guys might want to read the implied consent law in your state. The officer may administer tests. In most states that includes as many tests as the officer wants including several breath tests urine and blood.
Click to expand...
Probably going to get settled out of court anyway. I doubt the defendants legal team wants to try and make the case that there was reasonable suspicion for the first test, much less additional testing after the breathalyzer came back clear. Showing abuse of power and such are probably going to be easy shots for the plaintiff to make.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Probably going to get settled out of court anyway. I doubt the defendants legal team wants to try and make the case that there was reasonable suspicion for the first test, much less additional testing after the breathalyzer came back clear. Showing abuse of power and such are probably going to be easy shots for the plaintiff to make.
Click to expand...
My point is if you blow, the police my request more tests and if you refuse you are going to be suspended and the FAA is going to act accordingly.
 
Clip4 said:
My point is if you blow, the police my request more tests and if you refuse you are going to be suspended and the FAA is going to act accordingly.
Click to expand...
if they demand a second test after a 0.0 on their equipment they are treading on an forth amendment suit. they have no RAS, let alone probable cause for a second test. the police state at its best. just google loveland police abuse and see how bad that department is.
 
unsafervguy said:
if they demand a second test after a 0.0 on their equipment they are treading on an forth amendment suit. they have no RAS, let alone probable cause for a second test. the police state at its best. just google loveland police abuse and see how bad that department is.
Click to expand...
Not only can they require a second test, they can transport you to another location and test you with a different machine.
 
Last edited:
When being pulled over, it's a tough call how much to cooperate. Anything you say can be used against you. But if you say nothing that can be used against you too, leading to the kind of treatment seen here. It's not right but it's the real world.

I think there are simple, short things you can say in order to show cooperation, like "I have had nothing to drink", "I am not under the influence of alcohol or any other drugs." "I slowed down to read a street sign." Short, simple and non-argumentative statements like this could have given him a better outcome than refusing to speak - which is of course your right, but just because you have the legal right to do so, doesn't mean exercising that right is always the best course of action.

All that said, this guy was mistreated. I hope his suit is successful and forces the police department to change policy and methods.
 
Clip4 said:
No only can they require a second test, they can transport you to another location and test you with a different machine.
Click to expand...
forth amendment says otherwise, i don't really care what the stormtroopers think. comply, then hit them with a section 1983 suit for violation of the forth amendment. the only way the police state stop is when people know their rights and start standing up for them.
 
unsafervguy said:
forth amendment says otherwise, i don't really care what the stormtroopers think. comply, then hit them with a section 1983 suit for violation of the forth amendment. the only way the police state stop is when people know their rights and start standing up for them.
Click to expand...
When you accepted a drivers license, you agreed to provide tests. Refuse at you own peril.
 
unsafervguy said:
yes, but the forth amendment still applies and terry v ohio also. they can't hold you and conduct tests after their probable cause has been proven wrong by the first test. also i never said refuse, i said comply under protest and then file suit for abuse of your forth amendment rights.
Click to expand...
 
I know a guy hoodwinked into HIMS having bled a 0.0

Airline, that’s his union hard at work… geesh

Worse, the FAA allows that.
 
Ran into one of these situations several years ago in a small Indianapolis suburb, going home late at night.
Pulled over for nothing after leaving a bar pool tournament. When he said he was going to give me a breathalyzer, I laughed and told him “You know you pulled over the only guy in the bar that doesn’t drink, right?” That PO’d him and he made me go through the whole song and dance.

Toward the end he was getting really mad, and tried to trigger me saying, “You’re a real smart ass, you know that?” To which I unthinkingly immediately clipped, “You know, I have been told that before!”. Second cop that had shown up burst out laughing, other guy walked away. Second cop said you are free to go.
 
Anyone have an update on this lawsuit? Been over a year since the video and almost 4 yrs since his arrest.
 
I saw that a while back - my take is he was impaired, he knew it, and he delayed as much as possible. It doesn't have to be alcohol that causes the impairment. I understand that's why some departments ask for the acrobatic field sobriety tests before asking for the driver to blow - to show probable cause the driver was likely impaired by some substance, even it wasn't alcohol. A blood alcohol test over the limit is great evidence, but they do get convictions for DUI without chemical tests for drugs - I guess if a cop's the body cam and his testimony shows a driver to be obviously impaired the driver's lawyer will get them to plead out.
 
Albany Tom said:
I know it's not this generation, or all kids. We just hired 4 new people, all 25 or under, and they're just solid employees. Good work ethic, balanced outlook on things, not hot heads, they'd fit right into the world in the 40's.
Click to expand...

Sundancer said:
I saw that a while back - my take is he was impaired, he knew it, and he delayed as much as possible
Click to expand...
I've heard of that but that's usually the point of the blood tests because they screen for all sorts of stuff. I've heard of people getting DWI with diphenhydramine in their system. He had none of these and he should have been cleared. My understanding is to never consent to the roadside tests because at that point they have already committed to taking you in and they are just looking to get more evidence but i'm not a lawyer
 
francisco collazos said:
I've heard of that but that's usually the point of the blood tests because they screen for all sorts of stuff. I've heard of people getting DWI with diphenhydramine in their system. He had none of these and he should have been cleared. My understanding is to never consent to the roadside tests because at that point they have already committed to taking you in and they are just looking to get more evidence but i'm not a lawyer
Click to expand...

I believe he was cleared after the blood results came back.

You are right about the roadside tests. If you are in fact impaired you are probably already done by the time the officer asks you to perform the tests. The only variable, at least in my state, is whether you lose your license for 30 days for testing over the limit, or a year for refusing chemical tests. Either way, you are likely looking at the same plea deal.

With this guy having civil cases pending against two different agencies, I'm wondering if he isn't putting on an act to get himself arrested when he isn't impaired so he can sue. He has awfully bad luck, otherwise.
 
squincher said:
With this guy having civil cases pending against two different agencies, I'm wondering if he isn't putting on an act to get himself arrested when he isn't impaired so he can sue. He has awfully bad luck, otherwise.
Click to expand...

Honestly not a terrible strategy. That he got someone to bite on the first try is telling.

When I was 23 I had an undercover cops try to nail me for underage drinking. I gave them my name, address, and my ID as requested, and when they got pushy I said I was invoking my right to remain silent and did not say another word. If body camera footage was available it would have 5 million views on youtube. They accused me of selling drugs, cussed me up and down, offered to keep me out of jail if i confessed to why I was "being sketchy"
 
Yep. Best thing to do is simply shut up. I think there was a court case that says you need to verbally declare you are using your right to not talk.

“I had the right to remain silent, but I didn’t have the ability.” - Ron White
 
This is one of the reasons ... maybe THE reason ... section 18 asks about suspensions and convictions only and not mere arrests.
 
dell30rb said:
Honestly not a terrible strategy. That he got someone to bite on the first try is telling.

When I was 23 I had an undercover cops try to nail me for underage drinking. I gave them my name, address, and my ID as requested, and when they got pushy I said I was invoking my right to remain silent and did not say another word. If body camera footage was available it would have 5 million views on youtube. They accused me of selling drugs, cussed me up and down, offered to keep me out of jail if i confessed to why I was "being sketchy"
Click to expand...

How do you know it was the first try, and if he is intentionally driving badly and acting impaired what is it telling us?
 
This kind of thing happens without bad intent. A driver texting or otherwise distracted will weave just like a drunk driver.
 
I remember a racer that I met one time. He had some sort of ailment and he walked like he was plastered all the time. I wondered what happened if he got pulled over and asked to ''walk the line''...

He could drive the dickens out of his race car though.!!
 
Sundancer said:
I saw that a while back - my take is he was impaired, he knew it, and he delayed as much as possible. It doesn't have to be alcohol that causes the impairment. I understand that's why some departments ask for the acrobatic field sobriety tests before asking for the driver to blow - to show probable cause the driver was likely impaired by some substance, even it wasn't alcohol. A blood alcohol test over the limit is great evidence, but they do get convictions for DUI without chemical tests for drugs - I guess if a cop's the body cam and his testimony shows a driver to be obviously impaired the driver's lawyer will get them to plead out.
Click to expand...
That is, I think, why lawyers who do DIU defense (not me) recommend against doing roadside sobriety tests. They are subjective, won't convince the officer to let you go, and could provide evidence to use against you. If they think they have probable cause to demand the required certified tests, comply. Note, this is not legal advice and I am not anyone's lawyer on this issue nor am I knowledgeable about this topic.
 
PPC1052 said:
That is, I think, why lawyers who do DIU defense (not me) recommend against doing roadside sobriety tests. They are subjective, won't convince the officer to let you go, and could provide evidence to use against you. If they think they have probable cause to demand the required certified tests, comply. Note, this is not legal advice and I am not anyone's lawyer on this issue nor am I knowledgeable about this topic.
Click to expand...
My wife at one time sold custom packaging and got samples of the products. One time she came home with a Breathalyzer. I had a few swigs of alcohol and blew a perfect 0.0. I’ve never been much of a drinker so was never tempted to see if an official Breathalyzer would have the same result.
 
PPC1052 said:
That is, I think, why lawyers who do DIU defense (not me) recommend against doing roadside sobriety tests. They are subjective, won't convince the officer to let you go, and could provide evidence to use against you. If they think they have probable cause to demand the required certified tests, comply. Note, this is not legal advice and I am not anyone's lawyer on this issue nor am I knowledgeable about this topic.
Click to expand...
I've been told by those who know that if you're sober, you should demand they take your blood, and if you're drunk, you should take the breathalyzer.
 
bflynn said:
This is one of the reasons ... maybe THE reason ... section 18 asks about suspensions and convictions only and not mere arrests.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. Section 18(v) asks for ANY arrest, conviction or administrative action. (Drivers License suspension) You MUST answer yes for the rest of you Aviation life even if only arrested. Then you must file a report with the FAA within 60 days of conviction or administrative action. In some states an arrest is almost always automatic DL suspension. So NOW you have to file a report with OKC with attached police report for review. There have been pilots whew blew 0.0 and negative blood test and the mere arrest ended their career. I post this for any pilot reading this. DO NOT drive impaired even on prescribed pain medication. And be very careful dealing with DUI stops even when you are innocent because all it takes is a less than truthful officer to make you life Hell. I have a serious fear of an officer trying to make DUI quota and just arrest me for no reason. Then lie or try to mute the bodycam or whatever. He doesnt understand how serious the mere arrest is. It would ruin my life
 
PPC1052 said:
That is, I think, why lawyers who do DIU defense (not me) recommend against doing roadside sobriety tests. They are subjective, won't convince the officer to let you go, and could provide evidence to use against you. If they think they have probable cause to demand the required certified tests, comply. Note, this is not legal advice and I am not anyone's lawyer on this issue nor am I knowledgeable about this topic.
Click to expand...

Field sobriety tests are useless nowadays, and you don't have to submit to them, but this could result in you being a guest with the local sheriff's grey bar hotel with the word DUI on your jacket. While you can refuse field sobriety tests without penalty, you are legally required to submit to a chemical test (breath, blood, or urine) after being arrested for DUI under the implied consent law. Refusing will result in an automatic driver's license suspension of at least one year in CA. Many other states have the same policy.

Unlike in the past, much of the "field equipment" they have now can be calibrated and is "certifiable," meaning that the breath test you took on the roadside can be used as evidence. This is what makes the field sobriety test useless. If you're a complete narcissistic idiot and you do get yourself into this situation, go for the blood test. Blood can only be drawn by licensed medical personnel, and depending on the situation, it could take some time to get you to the location and, depending on the caseload at that location, before they can get to you. Sometimes, when a DUI checkpoint is set up... said personnel could be onsite.

Many local police departments now have a "specialized" DUI patrol on duty. If you're pulled over and suspected, if available, they will be there shortly to handle the process. Being specialized means "they know what they are doing and have seen everything."

With Uber and Lyft, my take is to spend the $20 and let the other guy get home to their family, and it will be the cheapest thing you do to keep your rating.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Field sobriety tests are useless nowadays, and you don't have to submit to them, but this could result in you being a guest with the local sheriff's grey bar hotel with the word DUI on your jacket. While you can refuse field sobriety tests without penalty, you are legally required to submit to a chemical test (breath, blood, or urine) after being arrested for DUI under the implied consent law. Refusing will result in an automatic driver's license suspension of at least one year in CA. Many other states have the same policy.

Unlike in the past, much of the "field equipment" they have now can be calibrated and is "certifiable," meaning that the breath test you took on the roadside can be used as evidence. This is what makes the field sobriety test useless. If you're a complete narcissistic idiot and you do get yourself into this situation, go for the blood test. Blood can only be drawn by licensed medical personnel, and depending on the situation, it could take some time to get you to the location and, depending on the caseload at that location, before they can get to you. Sometimes, when a DUI checkpoint is set up... said personnel could be onsite.

Many local police departments now have a "specialized" DUI patrol on duty. If you're pulled over and suspected, if available, they will be there shortly to handle the process. Being specialized means "they know what they are doing and have seen everything."

With Uber and Lyft, my take is to spend the $20 and let the other guy get home to their family, and it will be the cheapest thing you do to keep your rating.
Click to expand...
So never drive anywhere ever? (See the first couple posts)
 
EdFred said:
So never drive anywhere ever? (See the first couple posts)
Click to expand...

I'm not responding to the first few posts.. and stop being ridiculous.

I don't drink and drive, and if I am planning to go somewhere where the may be a glass or two of wine involved, there is an app for that.
 
Ventucky Red said:
I'm not responding to the first few posts.. and stop being ridiculous.

I don't drink and drive, and if I am planning to go somewhere where the may be a glass or two of wine involved, there is an app for that.
Click to expand...
The first few post are literally about people NOT driving under the influence and being arrested for it. So the claim of being ridiculous is, ironically ridiculous!
 
EdFred said:
The first few post are literally about people NOT driving under the influence and being arrested for it. So the claim of being ridiculous is, ironically ridiculous!
Click to expand...

:):p:):p:):p
 
EdFred said:
The first few post are literally about people NOT driving under the influence and being arrested for it. So the claim of being ridiculous is, ironically ridiculous!
Click to expand...

I would add that some state define intoxication as follows:
(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
Click to expand...
A dose of melatonin with a BAC of nothing can snag you a DUI/DWI based on that definition and self-incrimination during the stop.

Just a pet peeve of mine, but it’s easy and legal for me to tell an LEO “I’m not discussing my day/night with you.” Just like it’s easy and legal for me to ask if I’m free to go or am I being detained.

There’s very, very little information most people are legally required to provide to an LEO during a traffic stop.
 
TCABM said:
I would add that some state define intoxication as follows:

A dose of melatonin with a BAC of nothing can snag you a DUI/DWI based on that definition and self-incrimination during the stop.

Just a pet peeve of mine, but it’s easy and legal for me to tell an LEO “I’m not discussing my day/night with you.” Just like it’s easy and legal for me to ask if I’m free to go or am I being detained.

There’s very, very little information most people are legally required to provide to an LEO during a traffic stop.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top