Possession reduced to misconduct

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jiapath
  • Start date Start date
Cap'n Jack said:
DUI checkpoints....
Click to expand...

So if I drive through a DUI checkpoint, cops think they "smell" something, then let you go, do I now have to tell the FAA I was detained for drinking and driving? After all, they ran my license, questioned me for a criminal act, conducted an investigation and ultimately determined I was not in violation. If the courts determine the act lacks standing, should I still be suspended, have my insurance rates triple and be ordered to blow ito a tube before my car starts, even through I was not found guilty?

That is exactly what the FAA is doing in fact. Nevermind the law.... We "think" you were guilty, therefor you are. Makes me sick to my stomach...
 
Half Fast said:
So what are you doing about it?
Click to expand...

Change begins with an idea. When the idea grows to a movement, the people gain power. When the people have power, they make change happen. Pretty obvious that occurred 3 years ago.....
 
mryan75 said:
You don't have a right to a medical nor a pilot certificate. End of story. You want to play, you play by their rules.
Click to expand...
You have a right to due process.

Unfortunately, that's not the end of the story, because it's a phrase that is subject to interpretation.
 
Unit74 said:
Change begins with an idea. When the idea grows to a movement, the people gain power. When the people have power, they make change happen. Pretty obvious that occurred 3 years ago.....
Click to expand...
And it happened again five months ago.
 
Half Fast said:
Very true.

So what are you doing about it?
Click to expand...
It looks to me like he's trying to convince other citizens of his point of view. "Petitioning for a redress of grievances" is usually more effective if you're not the only person wanting things to change.
 
Unit74 said:
So if I drive through a DUI checkpoint, cops think they "smell" something, then let you go, do I now have to tell the FAA I was detained for drinking and driving? After all, they ran my license, questioned me for a criminal act, conducted an investigation and ultimately determined I was not in violation. If the courts determine the act lacks standing, should I still be suspended, have my insurance rates triple and be ordered to blow ito a tube before my car starts, even through I was not found guilty?

That is exactly what the FAA is doing in fact. Nevermind the law.... We "think" you were guilty, therefor you are. Makes me sick to my stomach...
Click to expand...
As you said:
Unit74 said:
If it was a snake, you would have been bitten.......
Click to expand...
Don't some people believe those DUI check points are unreasonable search?
 
Wether you agree with me or not, the convo sparks thoughts and feelings. That’s the important part.
 
wsuffa said:
Technically, both the appointed agency executive and the staff are unelected, therefore both are part of the bureaucracy. Hence IMHO the case is pitting the bureaucracy against the bureaucracy. Some would call the staff "deep state" and others might talk about whether the inmates are running the asylum, but in the end... it's a matter of whether the staff judgement or the SES judgement rules.

Had either Congress or the President (personally) made the decision, then yes, it would be policy decisions by the elected executive.

Not sure how "separation of powers" enters into this - both the agency head and the staff are part of the executive branch. The court is doing what courts are supposed to do and interperting whether this is permitted or not.
Click to expand...



The scope of the various cabinet agencies and their organization is proscribed by laws passed in congress, i.e. the legislative branch.

The commerce secretary is not a bureaucrat, he is an appointee and agent of the president, acts at his direction, and is therefore part of the executive branch. When a cabinet member makes decisions regarding how the law is to be interpreted, it is legally the same as the president doing so. You are incorrect in saying he is an unelected bureaucrat.

The law clearly states the commerce secretary can tailor the census as he sees fit. The plaintiffs in this action claim the opinions of staff are binding on the secretary.

That is the constitutional question. You're correct in saying the courts, or the judicial branch, determine which of the two above positions follow the law. That's why it is before the Supreme Court.

Again, this is not a political post. When I say "president", it refers to the person that has been legally elected to execute the law, not the current occupant of the White House.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
Again, this is not a political post. When I say "president", it refers to the person that has been legally elected to execute the law, not the current occupant of the White House.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I don't understand the distinction.
 
JOhnH said:
Sorry. I don't understand the distinction.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to prevent this from becoming a debate about that current occupant. It's been proven over and over that some people cannot restrain themselves from doing so.

The office of the presidency transcends the man.
 
Unit74 said:
So if I drive through a DUI checkpoint, cops think they "smell" something, then let you go, do I now have to tell the FAA I was detained for drinking and driving? After all, they ran my license, questioned me for a criminal act, conducted an investigation and ultimately determined I was not in violation. If the courts determine the act lacks standing, should I still be suspended, have my insurance rates triple and be ordered to blow ito a tube before my car starts, even through I was not found guilty?

That is exactly what the FAA is doing in fact. Nevermind the law.... We "think" you were guilty, therefor you are. Makes me sick to my stomach...
Click to expand...
Being detained is different from being arrested. I am working with a fellow who was detained cuffs!) and taken to the station and blew 0.02. There was no arrest and no record of any arrest. He was let go with an apology. No arrest= no report.
 
bbchien said:
Being detained is different from being arrested. I am working with a fellow who was detained cuffs!) and taken to the station and blew 0.02. There was no arrest and no record of any arrest. He was let go with an apology. No arrest= no report.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He was arrested Bruce. Custody plus transport is an arrest. A person can be unarrested at any point, but it is an arrest. What was not done was prosecution. In California, this is an PC849b release. Prima facia the arrest is a reportable incident to the FAA.
 
Unit74 said:
I disagree. He was arrested Bruce. Custody plus transport is an arrest. A person can be unarrested at any point, but it is an arrest. What was not done was prosecution. In California, this is an PC849b release. Prima facia the arrest is a reportable incident to the FAA.
Click to expand...

I think this may depend on the state and their definitions.

Also normally depends on the length of time I believe. If it is a “brief” stop for investigation, often not an arrest.
 
Unit74 said:
I disagree. He was arrested Bruce. Custody plus transport is an arrest. A person can be unarrested at any point, but it is an arrest. What was not done was prosecution. In California, this is an PC849b release. Prima facia the arrest is a reportable incident to the FAA.
Click to expand...
..and you got your Virginia law license from a box of Wheaties?
 
Palmpilot said:
Is there a way that the person could check his own arrest record?
Click to expand...

Usually the appropriate law enforcement agency will provide your own record to you. Just call their records department with the incident number from the report or your name and date of incident. If none is found, well there you have an answer of sorts.
 
Palmpilot said:
You have a right to due process.

Unfortunately, that's not the end of the story, because it's a phrase that is subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...
What part of 18 violates the due process clause?
 
3393RP said:
The scope of the various cabinet agencies and their organization is proscribed by laws passed in congress, i.e. the legislative branch.

The commerce secretary is not a bureaucrat, he is an appointee and agent of the president, acts at his direction, and is therefore part of the executive branch. When a cabinet member makes decisions regarding how the law is to be interpreted, it is legally the same as the president doing so. You are incorrect in saying he is an unelected bureaucrat.

The law clearly states the commerce secretary can tailor the census as he sees fit. The plaintiffs in this action claim the opinions of staff are binding on the secretary.

That is the constitutional question. You're correct in saying the courts, or the judicial branch, determine which of the two above positions follow the law. That's why it is before the Supreme Court.

Again, this is not a political post. When I say "president", it refers to the person that has been legally elected to execute the law, not the current occupant of the White House.
Click to expand...

This absolutely IS a political post, and as per usual is being allowed dependent on the content.
 
Unit74 said:
I disagree. He was arrested Bruce. Custody plus transport is an arrest. A person can be unarrested at any point, but it is an arrest. What was not done was prosecution. In California, this is an PC849b release. Prima facia the arrest is a reportable incident to the FAA.
Click to expand...
If you're going to pretend you know the law by using Latin, at least spell it right.
 
lbfjrmd said:
true - imperial - and a sad state of affairs We have allowed!
Click to expand...
Are you a constitutional originalist? I'm guessing yes. Which makes your disagreement with our constitution interesting.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree with the Holiday Inn comment but suggest applying it to this post as well.

The lack of a constitutional right to a pilot certificate does not negate the constitutional right to due process.

The requirements of due process are different in criminal vs adminstrative actions, but that's different than not having any rights.
Click to expand...
He has the right to apply, they have a right to determine his fitness for either, he has the right to contest that determination, both administratively or in the courts. Unless I'm missing anything.
 
bbchien said:
..and you got your Virginia law license from a box of Wheaties?
Click to expand...
LOL!

It's interesting how often comments on these types of legal issues comes down to "well, from my limited understanding of the legal process in my 50th of the country, this is how it seems to work, so it must be exactly like that everywhere."

The "arrest" issue you mention is an interesting one since the legal definition of an "arrest" under state law can be very different than the constitutional definition of the term.
 
mryan75 said:
So he is denied due process how? He isn't. And I do know that you understand that. So I'm just wondering where the Holiday Inn thing applies to me.
Click to expand...
Sorry. My fault for not being clear. I never said he was denied due process. My Holiday Inn comment was intended to apply to the "You do not have a right to a pilot certificate nor a medical certificate nor to operate an aircraft in the NAS. Period." statement. I thought that was clear from the context in which I mentioned that there are indeed applicable due process rights, but I guess I didn't accomplish that goal. I think we just managed to talk past each other on this one where it looks like we agree.
 
Unit74 said:
Your ignorance is spilling over Bruce. Perhaps you should stick to medicine.
Click to expand...
@Unit74
I implore you to not go down that road. @bbchien is anything but ignorant and is one of the most authoritative contributors on this board. But nobody is perfect every time. You might be right about California, but I don't believe the OP was talking about CA.
 
Unit74 said:
Your ignorance is spilling over Bruce. Perhaps you should stick to medicine.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's why I thought Bruce's scenario interesting. At first glance, I can see two, somewhat related, questions in the scenario Bruce mentions.
  • Is there something in Virginia law which says that "arrest" in this situation is not, to use the general definition, simply the use of legal authority to deprive a person of freedom of movement, or that an "arrest and release," when the police determine there is no basis to charge the person and lets them go, vitiates the existence of the arrest?
  • Is there something in the guidelines that limits the definition of "arrest" to not include an "arrest and release" ?
That second one sounds unusual given the FAA's position on expunctions which arguably negate the very existence of a conviction. I would hope a Virginia attorney is involved to answer at leas the first one.
 
Unit74 said:
So if I drive through a DUI checkpoint, cops think they "smell" something, then let you go, do I now have to tell the FAA I was detained for drinking and driving? After all, they ran my license, questioned me for a criminal act, conducted an investigation and ultimately determined I was not in violation. If the courts determine the act lacks standing, should I still be suspended, have my insurance rates triple and be ordered to blow ito a tube before my car starts, even through I was not found guilty?

That is exactly what the FAA is doing in fact.
Click to expand...
So by answering yes on line 18, the FAA is causing your insurance rates to triple and is causing you to be ordered to blow into a tube before your car starts? Wow. That's amazing.
Nevermind the law.... We "think" you were guilty, therefor you are.
Click to expand...
Its seems as though you're assuming that if you answer yes on line 18, you will be automatically disqualified or otherwise unable to ever obtain a medical. I'm not sure that's the case.

Makes me sick to my stomach...
Click to expand...
If that's true, sucks being you.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sorry. My fault for not being clear. I never said he was denied due process. My Holiday Inn comment was intended to apply to the "You do not have a right to a pilot certificate nor a medical certificate nor to operate an aircraft in the NAS. Period." statement. I thought that was clear from the context in which I mentioned that there are indeed applicable due process rights, but I guess I didn't accomplish that goal. I think we just managed to talk past each other on this one where it looks like we agree.
Click to expand...
Groovy. I still think in essence the statement is correct. I lot of folks get on the "rights not enumerated" stuff, and i thought maybe that was your line of thinking. Carry on!
 
mryan75 said:
Groovy. I still think in essence the statement is correct. I lot of folks get on the "rights not enumerated" stuff, and i thought maybe that was your line of thinking. Carry on!
Click to expand...
Not at all. We do not have a "right" to a pilot certificate. But I've discovered that a lot of people tend to think of that to say there are no rights associated with a pilot certificate. And that's not correct. Some might even argue the statement we do not have a right "to" a pilot certificate is misleading. Licenses and permits and benefits issued by governments are treated as property rights by a long line of SCOTUS decisions and the Constitution imposes a due process requirement before depriving a person of property.
 
Jahaha.... you guys are a crack up. Circle those wagons Little John...

This thread totally reminds me of:

 
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