Private pilot, 3rd class medical: pending dui

A

AH4

Guest
I am a private pilot and was in training to get my instrument rating when I was arrested for suspicion of DUI in May. My lawyer said it may take up to a year to get a court date. This is my first arrest of such thing; I do have a few speeding tickets from 2009/2010. It was on private property; no passengers, car wasn't towed etc.... I did a field sobriety test; was arrested and since that happened, I refused a breathalyzer for that fact.

My lawyer had my driving privileges "stayed" upon pending appeal.

I sent my notice to the FAA with a tracking number etc so I know it got there; I haven't received any info back from them. Is this normal? Is My 3rd class medical automatically suspended? Or pilot license suspended. I've read through the regulations but would like to talk someone who is more knowledgeable in this area for advice but remain semi- anonymous.

I want to keep on track with my training but I want to do this legally.

Is there any information the FAA might need that I am missing?

Does anyone know if it's better to fight for a SIS in court?
 
You'll probably be getting a letter before long. I'll let others get into the nitty gritty, however, when that letter comes, there will be a bunch of things you need to do before getting your Class III again. If you do all that and get it to the FAA, more than likely you'll have your medical restored. Go forth and sin no more. The next one will be even harder and more expensive, both from the DMV and FAA perspectives.


BTW... The fact that you refused the breath test means that you're guilty in the FAA's eyes. I doubt that the result of the court case will mean anything to them.
 
The FAA is going to consider that breathalyzer refusal the same as blowing >0.15. I'm almost certain this will require a HIMS AME and a whole bunch of hoops to jump through. Good luck.
 
AH4 said:
I am a private pilot and was in training to get my instrument rating when I was arrested for suspicion of DUI in May. My lawyer said it may take up to a year to get a court date. This is my first arrest of such thing; I do have a few speeding tickets from 2009/2010. It was on private property; no passengers, car wasn't towed etc.... I did a field sobriety test; was arrested and since that happened, I refused a breathalyzer for that fact.

My lawyer had my driving privileges "stayed" upon pending appeal.

I sent my notice to the FAA with a tracking number etc so I know it got there; I haven't received any info back from them. Is this normal? Is My 3rd class medical automatically suspended? Or pilot license suspended. I've read through the regulations but would like to talk someone who is more knowledgeable in this area for advice but remain semi- anonymous.

I want to keep on track with my training but I want to do this legally.

Is there any information the FAA might need that I am missing?

Does anyone know if it's better to fight for a SIS in court?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what state you are in, but in Michigan (as in many other states), SIS is not permitted for DUI.

And for what "fact" did you refuse a breathalyzer?
 
Anymouse said:
BTW... The fact that you refused the breath test means that you're guilty in the FAA's eyes. I doubt that the result of the court case will mean anything to them.
Click to expand...
This. Suspicion of DUI is the same as a DUI in that situation. It's the same as saying "I'm guilty, take me away!"
 
Contact Dr. Chien at www.aeromedicaldoc.com and consult. Give him all information straight, no holding back (it sounds like you're addressing this honestly, anyway).
 
I had a coworker refuse a breathalyzer. He got the charges dismissed after about 2 years. Cost him 90k in lawyer fees though.
 
TommyG said:
I had a coworker refuse a breathalyzer. He got the charges dismissed after about 2 years. Cost him 90k in lawyer fees though.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's worth it unless you were facing a lot of jail time or the loss of your job. But in the case of pilots and the FAA the dismissal would be of no benefit and it would be a waste of money.
 
Rushie said:
I'm not sure that's worth it unless you were facing a lot of jail time or the loss of your job. But in the case of pilots and the FAA the dismissal would be of no benefit and it would be a waste of money.
Click to expand...

He would have been fired.
 
TommyG said:
I had a coworker refuse a breathalyzer. He got the charges dismissed after about 2 years. Cost him 90k in lawyer fees though.
Click to expand...

Talk about a broken system


AH4 said:
...It was on private property; no passengers, car wasn't towed etc.... I did a field sobriety test; was arrested and since that happened, I refused a breathalyzer for that fact....
Click to expand...

How was the cop authorized to enter your property? Unless you were tripping over yourself, don't see how he saw probable cause and I'm guessing he didn't have a warrant

Did anyone tell him to leave?
 
Last edited:
It's good you are being honest about the incident. My guess is your medical is suspended until you get things cleared up. But I don't know a hoot about the real answer to your questions. You need to talk to someone who knows the laws for advise, good luck.
 
With regard to 61.15, you make the report within 60 days of any administrative suspension or DL revocation or conviction. That starts a cascade. In most states, intention to drive is defined as keys available to the individual.

The Airman security division will not act on a notification if neither of the above has happened. Nonetheless, if and when either happens, the clock starts ticking from that moment.

And you will have to report the ARREST event at your next medical.

61.15(e) Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide a written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA, Civil Aviation Security Division (AMC-700), P.O. Box 25810, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, not later than 60 days after the motor vehicle action. The report must include:

(1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate number;

(2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the administrative action;

(3) The date of the conviction or administrative action;

(4) The State that holds the record of conviction or administrative action; and

(5) A statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a previously reported motor vehicle action.

(f) Failure to comply with paragraph (e) of this section is grounds for:

(1) 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 the motor vehicle action; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.

So, it may be that you have not yet had a "Motor vehicle action". But when you do, the clock starts ticking. The 61.15 guys are not the medical branch, they are pilot enforcement. When you report a suspension or a conviction they notify the medical guys too. But you cannot fail to start the clock when the PILOT certificate is at stake. So don't rely on the letter you sent them if you have not yet had a (a) suspension or a (b) conviction, you still have to report when you have an (a) or a (b).
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
...How was the cop authorized to enter your property? Unless you were tripping over yourself, don't see how he saw probable cause and I'm guessing he didn't have a warrant

Did anyone tell him to leave?
Click to expand...
Who said it was HIS private property. Walmart is private property, for example. I imagine something like a parking lot is a more likely scenario.
 
bbchien said:
With regard to 61.15, you make the report within 60 days of any administrative suspension or DL revocation or conviction. That starts a cascade. In most states, intention to drive is defined as keys available to the individual.

The Airman security division will not act on a notification if neither of the above has happened. Nonetheless, if and when either happens, the clock starts ticking from that moment.

And you will have to report the ARREST event at your next medical.

61.15(e) Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide a written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA, Civil Aviation Security Division (AMC-700), P.O. Box 25810, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, not later than 60 days after the motor vehicle action. The report must include:

(1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate number;

(2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the administrative action;

(3) The date of the conviction or administrative action;

(4) The State that holds the record of conviction or administrative action; and

(5) A statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a previously reported motor vehicle action.

(f) Failure to comply with paragraph (e) of this section is grounds for:

(1) 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 the motor vehicle action; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.

So, it may be that you have not yet had a "Motor vehicle action". But when you do, the clock starts ticking. The 61.15 guys are not the medical ranch, they are pilot enforcement. When you report a suspension or a conviction they notify the medical guys too. But you cannot fail to start the clock when PILOT certificate. So don't rely on the letter you sent them if you have not yet had a (a) suspension or a (b) conviction, you still have to report when you have an (a) or a (b).
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Does this mean he can continue to fly until those things happen? (the motor vehicle action: suspension, revocation or conviction, OR the date of his next medical when he reports the arrest and the AME doesn't issue him)

PS edit: or obviously, he hears back from the FAA that he's grounded
 
Thank you! I reported both the arrest and outcome which was that the case is suspended imposition of sentence; I have not received anything from the FAA yet regarding my medical or license being suspended but I did report everything within the 60 days.



bbchien said:
With regard to 61.15, you make the report within 60 days of any administrative suspension or DL revocation or conviction. That starts a cascade. In most states, intention to drive is defined as keys available to the individual.

The Airman security division will not act on a notification if neither of the above has happened. Nonetheless, if and when either happens, the clock starts ticking from that moment.

And you will have to report the ARREST event at your next medical.

61.15(e) Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide a written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA, Civil Aviation Security Division (AMC-700), P.O. Box 25810, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, not later than 60 days after the motor vehicle action. The report must include:

(1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate number;

(2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the administrative action;

(3) The date of the conviction or administrative action;

(4) The State that holds the record of conviction or administrative action; and

(5) A statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a previously reported motor vehicle action.

(f) Failure to comply with paragraph (e) of this section is grounds for:

(1) 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 the motor vehicle action; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.

So, it may be that you have not yet had a "Motor vehicle action". But when you do, the clock starts ticking. The 61.15 guys are not the medical branch, they are pilot enforcement. When you report a suspension or a conviction they notify the medical guys too. But you cannot fail to start the clock when the PILOT certificate is at stake. So don't rely on the letter you sent them if you have not yet had a (a) suspension or a (b) conviction, you still have to report when you have an (a) or a (b).
Click to expand...
 
Ah4 said:
Thank you! I reported both the arrest and outcome which was that the case is suspended imposition of sentence; I have not received anything from the FAA yet regarding my medical or license being suspended but I did report everything within the 60 days.
Click to expand...
It appears that there was no suspension nor conviction as of yet, so no respone will be had. It that changes you will report again.
 
tawood said:
Who said it was HIS private property. Walmart is private property, for example. I imagine something like a parking lot is a more likely scenario.
Click to expand...

In which case he wouldn't be arrested for DUI (at least in Texas), since part of the statute involves a 'public roadway', so there may be some information the OP is omitting or some other mistake of fact.
 
JCranford said:
In which case he wouldn't be arrested for DUI (at least in Texas), since part of the statute involves a 'public roadway', so there may be some information the OP is omitting or some other mistake of fact.
Click to expand...
Varies by state. Here in Michigan, private property but open to the public is fair game.
 
tawood said:
Varies by state. Here in Michigan, private property but open to the public is fair game.
Click to expand...

Hmmm interesting. He would be good to go for public intoxication in a Walmart parking lot, but not DUI (in Texas).
 
JCranford said:
In which case he wouldn't be arrested for DUI (at least in Texas), since part of the statute involves a 'public roadway', so there may be some information the OP is omitting or some other mistake of fact.
Click to expand...


In Missouri, if your keys are in the ignition, even if you're in your own driveway, you're fair game. Motor doesn't even have to be running.

Okay, maybe "in your own driveway" is a bit of a stretch, but I know a guy who got a DWI about a dozen years ago. He was in his buddy's driveway, sleeping it off after a party, had his keys in the ignition and turned to accessory so he could listen to the radio. His dome light (or something in the interior) was on. Cop passed by, noticed, decided to check it out, and arrested the guy. He got a DWI.

A guy who was doing the right thing by not driving home.

He was told that if his keys had been in his pocket then he would've been okay but since they were in the ignition there was "intent to drive" (or some similar BS).
 
Last edited:
I absolutely have zero tolerance for drunk drivers. As a medic, too often I witness the destruction they caused. However, the laws have to be fair and sensible, and they are not. The guy sleeping it off listening to his radio is not fair. (It should require the engine on to be considered a dui.) Neither is the FAA. No conviction should equal no reporting/action. In this country you can be arrested for just walking down the street, if an officer believes you are guilty of something. If "innocent until proven guilty" is the law of the land, it should apply to the FAA as well.

Yet another reason why I have zero respect for the FAA.
 
JCranford said:
Hmmm interesting. He would be good to go for public intoxication in a Walmart parking lot, but not DUI (in Texas).
Click to expand...
John's response raises this FAA specific question...

IF the applicant has on his records DUI's, we know the FAA will ask for a specific set of documentation and likely will ask for the documented abstinence and HIMS level evaluations.

But If the applicant only has public intoxication on record, does it require the same level of activity as DUI's?
 
JCranford said:
In which case he wouldn't be arrested for DUI (at least in Texas), since part of the statute involves a 'public roadway', so there may be some information the OP is omitting or some other mistake of fact.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The statute doesn't say "public roadway" it says "public place." This is distinct from the open container law which does say "highway."

Texas defines "public place" as "any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops."

I would argue that driving while intoxicated in the Walmark parking lot indeed is legally in violation of the Texas statute.
 
flyingron said:
Incorrect. The statute doesn't say "public roadway" it says "public place." This is distinct from the open container law which does say "highway."

Texas defines "public place" as "any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops."

I would argue that driving while intoxicated in the Walmark parking lot indeed is legally in violation of the Texas statute.
Click to expand...

Right you are. I mis-spoke
 
flyingron said:
Incorrect. The statute doesn't say "public roadway" it says "public place." This is distinct from the open container law which does say "highway."

Texas defines "public place" as "any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops."

I would argue that driving while intoxicated in the Walmark parking lot indeed is legally in violation of the Texas statute.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the distinction is between "public place" and "public property". Privately owned shops for example, are not publicly owned property and neither is a Walmart parking lot, but in this use it is a "public place" because large numbers of the general public use it regularly. On the other hand, say you own a farm and the public doesn't go there, indeed you have it gated and locked, with a no trespassing sign. If you drive across your own property while drinking a beer, does that count? I guess that's when it varies by state.
 
Rushie said:
It sounds like the distinction is between "public place" and "public property". Privately owned shops for example, are not publicly owned property and neither is a Walmart parking lot, but in this use it is a "public place" because large numbers of the general public use it regularly. On the other hand, say you own a farm and the public doesn't go there, indeed you have it gated and locked, with a no trespassing sign. If you drive across your own property while drinking a beer, does that count? I guess that's when it varies by state.
Click to expand...
I can only speak for the state I work in...in Michigan, you could drive drunk, with an open beer, and a pistol on your lap, on your fenced/gated farm all day long, and its nobody's business but your own. Now that I think of it, sounds kinda fun...lol.
 
Rushie said:
It sounds like the distinction is between "public place" and "public property". Privately owned shops for example, are not publicly owned property and neither is a Walmart parking lot, but in this use it is a "public place" because large numbers of the general public use it regularly. On the other hand, say you own a farm and the public doesn't go there, indeed you have it gated and locked, with a no trespassing sign. If you drive across your own property while drinking a beer, does that count? I guess that's when it varies by state.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "distinction" you're trying to make. The intoxication statutes apply to "public places." The definition in the Texas penal code is exactly as I posted it (I cut and pasted it word for word from the statute). A shopping center is a public place even if it is private property. You can be arrested for being intoxicated there (even without driving) and if you are operating a vehicle, arrested for DUI.

Your private farm, not generally open to public access (whether it has a locked gate or not), is not a public place. You're free to me hammered all you want and drive around while you are.
 
flyingron said:
I'm not sure what "distinction" you're trying to make. The intoxication statutes apply to "public places." The definition in the Texas penal code is exactly as I posted it (I cut and pasted it word for word from the statute). A shopping center is a public place even if it is private property. You can be arrested for being intoxicated there (even without driving) and if you are operating a vehicle, arrested for DUI.

Your private farm, not generally open to public access (whether it has a locked gate or not), is not a public place. You're free to me hammered all you want and drive around while you are.
Click to expand...

The distinction I am trying to make is that it seems that when the statute says "public place" it does not mean "public property" ONLY. A public "place" might be private property. Other laws and regulations might restrict things on public property but not private property even if a large number of people gather there.
 
Eh? Who said it has to mean public property.
 
tawood said:
I can only speak for the state I work in...in Michigan, you could drive drunk, with an open beer, and a pistol on your lap, on your fenced/gated farm all day long, and its nobody's business but your own. Now that I think of it, sounds kinda fun...lol.
Click to expand...
Interesting point. I'mma thinkin' that possession of a gun while intoxicated 'round here (Colorado) is a crime even on private property. I think the law doesn't distinguish between private property and public property when it comes to fire arms and booze in these parts.
 
Clark1961 said:
Interesting point. I'mma thinkin' that possession of a gun while intoxicated 'round here (Colorado) is a crime even on private property. I think the law doesn't distinguish between private property and public property when it comes to fire arms and booze in these parts.
Click to expand...
Possession of a firearm while intoxicated on your own property is fine,as long as you don’t fire it...then it’s reckless discharge. Our law also covers possession, but our prosecutor won’t write on it.
 
Clark1961 said:
Interesting point. I'mma thinkin' that possession of a gun while intoxicated 'round here (Colorado) is a crime even on private property. I think the law doesn't distinguish between private property and public property when it comes to fire arms and booze in these parts.
Click to expand...

So drunk in your own bed and sleeping with a rifle is legally the same as stumbling down main street with it?
 
bflynn said:
So drunk in your own bed and sleeping with a rifle is legally the same as stumbling down main street with it?
Click to expand...
Well if you are sleeping with your rifle then maybe different laws apply. At least in Georgia. As far as stumbling down main street with a weapon that would be brandishing at the very least.

In urban areas of Colorado if you are drunk in your home and have guns and the police are involved then the guns will be confiscated. The track record on that one is clear.
 
Clark1961 said:
Well if you are sleeping with your rifle then maybe different laws apply. At least in Georgia. As far as stumbling down main street with a weapon that would be brandishing at the very least.

In urban areas of Colorado if you are drunk in your home and have guns and the police are involved then the guns will be confiscated. The track record on that one is clear.
Click to expand...

Selective and interpretive law “enforcement” is wonderful, ain’t it? What’s next? Impound cars and send kids off to foster care because Mommy had some wine? Weeeeee!!!
 
Lachlan said:
Selective and interpretive law “enforcement” is wonderful, ain’t it? What’s next? Impound cars and send kids off to foster care because Mommy had some wine? Weeeeee!!!
Click to expand...
In Jefferson County that might not be much of a stretch...they are invasive when “it’s for the children”
 
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