What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

AuntPeggy said:
ok... My emphasis underlined.
Click to expand...

That seems like a reasonable statute. I can see a case to be argued for the defense, relating to the location, but it doesn't look good.

Her career isn't over. That would be crazy and absolutely unreasonable. Suspended license for, say 90 days? Back on the circuit.




(The notion that I could be arrested for drunk driving in a golf cart on my own private property, on the other hand, is ludicrous. That IS police state stuff.)
 
EdFred said:
Considering Nick was put in the hospital by a drunk driver, I doubt that Nick is going to be doing any of those things.
Click to expand...

But Nick is also a known consumer and unless he always walks, takes a cab or public transportation then one day he may find himself in a situation where he needs to sleep it off and the only place he has is his car. Or just walking out to your car just to get "a sweater, smokes, your phone, etc" while intoxicated can get you a DUI. You had your keys and so you could have operated the vehicle when you got there so we are going to slap you with a DUI. This is how the law is written and officers are giving an monetary incentive to arrest. Not all will take the bait but some will specially if they are on DUI duty. Also, if your DD has one and is over the limit, they can arrest the passenger for DUI since it's assumed that the passenger would have been driving. Better yet, you can be charged with a DUI even if you blow under the "legal" limit. There is no safe way to consume without the possibility of being charged with DUI the way the law is written. Nick may take every precaution because of what he has experianced and still "commit the crime" because of how loose the laws are.
 
Last edited:
Missa said:
But Nick is also a known consumer and unless he always walks, takes a cab or public transportation then one day he may find himself in a situation where he needs to sleep it off and the only place he has is his car. Or just walking out to your car just to get "a sweater, smokes, your phone, etc" while intoxicated can get you a DUI. You had your keys and so you could have operated the vehicle when you got there so we are going to slap you with a DUI. This is how the law is written and officers are giving an monetary incentive to arrest. Not all will take the bait but some will specially if they are on DUI duty. Also, if your DD has one and is over the limit, they can arrest the passenger for DUI since it's assumed that the passenger would have been driving. Better yet, you can be charged with a DUI even if you blow under the "legal" limit. There is no safe way to consume without the possibility of being charged with DUI the way the law is written. Nick may take every precaution because of what he has experianced and still "commit the crime" because of how loose the laws are.
Click to expand...


That's why you have a carabeener, snap the car keys off, and leave the car keys at home (or with the bartender), or what was suggested by a cop up here if you sleep in your car. Throw the keys in the bushes then climb in.
 
EdFred said:
That's why you have a carabeener, snap the car keys off, and leave the car keys at home (or with the bartender), or what was suggested by a cop up here if you sleep in your car. Throw the keys in the bushes then climb in.
Click to expand...

So how do you walk to the car and get in if the car is locked without the keys? The problem is your door key is also your ignition key unless you have a really old car.

Hum, yea... I'm going to throw my keys in the bushes for anyone to find and wake me up in a very undesirable mannor. Great idea. Swap a possible DUI for Rape or murder.. great choice.

Maybe we need to get a little reasonableness and only be able to charge a DUI if the car is actually started. Oh and as a drunk passenger if I had a reasonable assumption that I had a sober driver, I shouldn't be charged either untill I try to drive rather then call a cab.
 
Missa said:
You had your keys and so you could have operated the vehicle when you got there so we are going to slap you with a DUI. This is how the law is written and officers are giving an monetary incentive to arrest. Not all will take the bait but some will specially if they are on DUI duty.
Click to expand...

That seems over the top to me. Do they go around busting partying people with motorhomes at campgrounds and RV parks? Or people partying in their 5th wheel if it's still attached to the truck?


Trapper John
 
Missa said:
So how do you walk to the car and get in if the car is locked without the keys? The problem is your door key is also your ignition key unless you have a really old car.

Hum, yea... I'm going to throw my keys in the bushes for anyone to find and wake me up in a very undesirable mannor. Great idea. Swap a possible DUI for Rape or murder.. great choice.

Maybe we need to get a little reasonableness and only be able to charge a DUI if the car is actually started. Oh and as a drunk passenger if I had a reasonable assumption that I had a sober driver, I shouldn't be charged either untill I try to drive rather then call a cab.
Click to expand...

I have my keyfob separate from my key. I'll often go into the store in the winter, leave my car running, and lock it with the remote.
 
Missa said:
e.

Maybe we need to get a little reasonableness and only be able to charge a DUI if the car is actually started. Oh and as a drunk passenger if I had a reasonable assumption that I had a sober driver, I shouldn't be charged either untill I try to drive rather then call a cab.
Click to expand...

Being charged and being convicted are two different things. Just sayin'.
 
Missa said:
So how do you walk to the car and get in if the car is locked without the keys? The problem is your door key is also your ignition key unless you have a really old car.
Click to expand...

Key fob. Most every car the last 8 years or so has one.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Being charged and being convicted are two different things. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

When the prosecuting attorney and judge all belong to the same country club and live in teh same neighborhood, they aren't.
 
Missa said:
Driving a GOLF CART on a closed runway and it was an OUI not a DUI. An OUI could be issued for just sitting on a golf cart that has the keys in it. The details have not come out and eveyone is just guessing the worst. Innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

No, it was a high power Rouche Mustang. Personally, I would have done a few donuts and left the pedal down to the "1000' remaining" mark to see what it would do before I shut her down.....but I wouldn't have been drunk or belligerent to the officer either.
 
Last edited:
kevin47881 said:
In some cases that is true, you can't lock the doors with the key fob with the car running.
Click to expand...
But his situation was:
EdFred said:
I have my keyfob separate from my key. I'll often go into the store in the winter, leave my car running, and lock it with the remote.
Click to expand...
and if the remote is also the key, you obviously cannot do that!
 
gprellwitz said:
But his situation was:
and if the remote is also the key, you obviously cannot do that!
Click to expand...

Easy to do with my remote start. Press the 'start' button before you remove the key and the remote start relays keep the ignition on when you remove the key. If you forget about it, 23 minutes later it'll shut off.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Being charged and being convicted are two different things.
Click to expand...
Not to the FAA. The recent change to the medical application instructions now requires you to report any DUI (or whatever it's called in your state) arrests on your next medical whether you were convicted or not. Y'all be careful -- and smart.
 
Henning said:
No, it was a high power Rouche Mustang.
Click to expand...
That's "Roush," as in Jack "The Jack in The Hat" Roush, principal owner and leader of Roush Racing (#99 Carl Edwards, #16 Greg Biffle, #17 Matt Kenseth, #26 Jamie McMurray, and last year's Rookie of the Year #6 David Ragan). Roush makes Mustangs into really hot performance cars -- that car Patty was driving probably cost more than my airplane. And maybe as fast, too.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's "Roush," as in Jack "The Jack in The Hat" Roush, principal owner and leader of Roush Racing (#99 Carl Edwards, #16 Greg Biffle, #17 Matt Kenseth, #26 Jamie McMurray, and last year's Rookie of the Year #6 David Ragan). Roush makes Mustangs into really hot performance cars -- that car Patty was driving probably cost more than my airplane. And maybe as fast, too.
Click to expand...

Faster. My car is faster than the majority of piston singles, and it's stock.
 
Missa said:
SO I can have a couple of brews go ride my bike on my property with no one but me and the cop, not endangering anyone and get a DUI....:mad2:

Just when did we let go of sanity in this country? Why not just bring back Prohibition... that's really what MAD is trying to do and we are just letting them strip our rights away without any fight because it looks bad to oppose MAD.
...
Click to expand...

When politicians write laws to outlaw the latest tragedy after it happened.

You expect them to just sit there and do nothing? :mad3:

I can't figure out why nobody's doing anything about outlawing Tsunamis and earthquakes.
 
mikea said:
When politicians write laws to outlaw the latest tragedy after it happened.

You expect them to just sit there and do nothing? :mad3:

I can't figure out why nobody's doing anything about outlawing Tsunamis and earthquakes.
Click to expand...
Because except for some old movies - they've never been able to get God to appear in a courtroom.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not to the FAA. The recent change to the medical application instructions now requires you to report any DUI (or whatever it's called in your state) arrests on your next medical whether you were convicted or not. Y'all be careful -- and smart.
Click to expand...

Was there any discussion about that change? I understood the other changes covering getting disability benefits, and "urine test" instead of urinalysis, but did the FAA ever explain the reasons for the reporting arrests and not convictions?
 
There are so many assumptions going on here I have a hard time keeping track of them all.
But as a former peace officer:
1. To be in control of a vehicle does NOT mean you have the keys in your pocket.
2. Refusal to take a "test" is the SMARTEST thing you can do, they can't prove BAC then, it is your word against the arresting officers on the field sobriety test.
3. She has been CONVICTED of NOTHING. As said earlier, it STILL is innocent until proven guilty and with a good lawyer, most first offense DUI's are reduced to wreckless driving.

No prosecutor is going to go to court on "iffy" evidence. They will just dismiss it completely.
The Monday morning quarterbacking going on here is just CRAZY.

Mark B.
 
Mark, you're from the "show me" state. You wouldn't BELIEVE what passes for criminal law in some other states, particularly around this issue.
 
TMetzinger said:
Mark, you're from the "show me" state. You wouldn't BELIEVE what passes for criminal law in some other states, particularly around this issue.
Click to expand...
Agree,
But facts are facts. She took no test, so there is NO WAY of knowing what her BAC was.
With that information, there is NO WAY to prove that she was above the legal limit and I would "guess" that it WILL be plea bargained down to wreckless driving and have NO alcohol related offense on her record.

Mark B
 
Unfortunately given the new medical form, she'll have to report the arrest on her next medical, even though she wasn't convicted. What that means in terms of issuance I don't know - maybe Dr. Bruce might have gotten some guidance from OKC on what happens when the "yes" box is checked to that question.
 
markb5900 said:
Agree,
But facts are facts. She took no test, so there is NO WAY of knowing what her BAC was.
With that information, there is NO WAY to prove that she was above the legal limit and I would "guess" that it WILL be plea bargained down to wreckless driving and have NO alcohol related offense on her record.

Mark B
Click to expand...

If you read Ron's link above, you will find (as in most states) there is no requirement to be "above the legal" per se limit to either be charged, or convicted, of OUI/DUI in the state of Wisconsin. Only that you be under the influence of an intoxicant to the degree that renders you incapable of safely driving.

Being over the "per se" limit of alcohol is both evidence of that fact (to be considered along with all other evidence - or if you refuse the test, not at all), and in some states a wholly separate charge (though not in WI, they are joined as one offense for purposes of trial.)

Who decides if you are beyond that degree of being safe? 1. You; 2. The officer who arrests you; 3. (In most states) the magistrate who commits you after your arrest; 4. The finder of fact in your trial (judge or jury.)

Do I care about Patty Wagstaff at this point? Not really. But I care about (all of) you.

346.63 Operating under influence of intoxicant or
other drug. (1) No person may drive or operate a motor vehicle
while:

(a) Under the influence of an intoxicant, a controlled substance,
a controlled substance analog or any combination of an
intoxicant, a controlled substance and a controlled substance analog,
under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders
him or her incapable of safely driving, or under the combined
influence of an intoxicant and any other drug to a degree which
renders him or her incapable of safely driving; or the person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.
Click to expand...


or
(b) The person has a prohibited alcohol concentration.
Click to expand...
 
alaskaflyer said:
If you read Ron's link above, you will find (as in most states) there is no requirement to be "above the legal" per se limit to either be charged, or convicted, of OUI/DUI in the state of Wisconsin. Only that you be under the influence of an intoxicant to the degree that renders you incapable of safely driving.

Being over the "per se" limit of alcohol is both evidence of that fact (to be considered along with all other evidence - or if you refuse the test, not at all), and in some states a wholly separate charge (though not in WI, they are joined as one offense for purposes of trial.)

Who decides if you are beyond that degree of being safe? 1. You; 2. The officer who arrests you; 3. (In most states) the magistrate who commits you after your arrest; 4. The finder of fact in your trial (judge or jury.)

Do I care about Patty Wagstaff at this point? Not really. But I care about (all of) you.



or
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but with no BAC to go by as I said it is YOUR word against the arresting officer as to how you performed on a FST.
So, with a GOOD lawyer you are going to pull up how many FST's that officer has done and compare the results etc...
BUT, my real point is, she is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. That is the REAL fact of this.
And she will probably be plea bargained down to a non alcohol offense.
I have no particular like or dislike for her. But I hate the Monday morning quarterbacking that is going on with NO facts.

Mark B
 
Ron Levy said:
Not to the FAA. The recent change to the medical application instructions now requires you to report any DUI (or whatever it's called in your state) arrests on your next medical whether you were convicted or not. Y'all be careful -- and smart.
Click to expand...
All of youse need to understand that the reason it got this way, was somebody always spoils it for the rest of us....like that guy in eastern pennsylvania who flew around for an hour and then crashed/walked away.

Give your thanks to Mr Oberstar for your/our collective situation.
 
markb5900 said:
I am sorry, but with no BAC to go by as I said it is YOUR word against the arresting officer as to how you performed on a FST.
So, with a GOOD lawyer you are going to pull up how many FST's that officer has done and compare the results etc...
BUT, my real point is, she is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. That is the REAL fact of this.
And she will probably be plea bargained down to a non alcohol offense.
I have no particular like or dislike for her. But I hate the Monday morning quarterbacking that is going on with NO facts.

Mark B
Click to expand...

Sorry Mark--it doesn't work like that in some states. I've never lived in Wisconsin so I have no idea the laws there.

For example, Minnesota is an "implied consent" state. You are required by law to submit to a chemical, blood, or urine test. If you do refuse the test it is a crime and you receive an automatic 1 year drivers license suspension.

When you apply or renew a drivers license in Minnesota you sign a piece of paper that states you're required to submit to the above tests or else you're suspended for a year *with* a DWI charge. You are then required to pay a $680 reinstatement fee, complete a DWI knowledge test, and a chemical assessment test.

I know a few people with *lots* of money that refused the test thinking their fancy lawyers could get them out of it. They couldn't.

Also, Minnesota is a "four strikes and you're out state". On your 4th DUI you are required to attend treatment and it is a *FELONY* DUI with a prison sentence.

Missouri is also an implied consent state. You might want to review the following:
http://www.moga.missouri.gov/statutes/C500-599/5770000041.HTM
Upon receipt of the officer's report, the director shall revoke the license of the person refusing to take the test for a period of one year; or if the person is a nonresident, such person's operating permit or privilege shall be revoked for one year; or if the person is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, an order shall be issued denying the person the issuance of a license or permit for a period of one year.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
markb5900 said:
I am sorry, but with no BAC to go by as I said it is YOUR word against the arresting officer as to how you performed on a FST.
So, with a GOOD lawyer you are going to pull up how many FST's that officer has done and compare the results etc...
BUT, my real point is, she is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. That is the REAL fact of this.
And she will probably be plea bargained down to a non alcohol offense.
I have no particular like or dislike for her. But I hate the Monday morning quarterbacking that is going on with NO facts.

Mark B
Click to expand...

Mark, I don't disagree with your point, I just took issue with what you presented as the law. In addition to the FST's, there is the original driving behavior that brought you to the attention of law enforcement in the first place, your demeanor behind the wheel, your odor, your behavior during questioning and the arrest (and booking process), and if it was recorded or noted your words and your appearance. Juries love that stuff. Much more than any sterile and boring BAC level ;)

The result may indeed be what you predict, but probably not for the reasons you stated. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I would guess that 99% of all states are implied consent states.
But that doesn't mean in the REAL WORLD that it will be prosecuted. As someone that has well over 200 DUI arrests I can state for FACT that refusal is the best way to go.

No low time DA is going to go court over a simple DUI. They will take the plea to the lesser charge.
Your "people with lots of money" needed better lawyers!

Mark B
 
alaskaflyer said:
Mark, I don't disagree with your point, I just took issue with what you presented as the law. In addition to the FST's, there is the original driving behavior that brought you to the attention of law enforcement in the first place, your demeanor behind the wheel, your odor, your behavior during questioning and the arrest (and booking process), and if it was recorded or noted your words and your appearance. Juries love that stuff. Much more than any sterile and boring BAC level ;)

The result may indeed be what you predict, but probably not for the reasons you stated. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to represent it as law, just the way that it REALLY happens in the lower 48.
 
TMetzinger said:
Was there any discussion about that change?
Click to expand...
Outside the FAA aeromedical group? Not to my knowledge.
I understood the other changes covering getting disability benefits, and "urine test" instead of urinalysis, but did the FAA ever explain the reasons for the reporting arrests and not convictions?
Click to expand...
No, but Dr. Bruce Chien suggested it might be because too many folks were finding sneaky ways to turn DUI arrests into something that didn't involve a conviction for DUI or mandatory attendance at driving school. Since the FAA believes there is an undeniable connection between irresponsible behavior with alcohol/cars and equally irresponsible behavior with alcohol/planes, they want to know when you get caught driving a car with enough booze in your system to interfere with your ability to drive, whether you get convicted of DUI or not.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the constitutionality of this change -- it is what it is, so if you value your flying privileges, you'd better not get caught by the cops driving around with booze in your system. Since it's really easy to get caught if you do drive that way, you'd better make certain that when you drive you don't drink, and when you drink you don't drive. Period.
 
I thought they took your license away after three or four. I had no idea anybody had more than a hundred. Is that a record?

markb5900 said:
I would guess that 99% of all states are implied consent states.
But that doesn't mean in the REAL WORLD that it will be prosecuted. As someone that has well over 200 DUI arrests I can state for FACT that refusal is the best way to go.

No low time DA is going to go court over a simple DUI. They will take the plea to the lesser charge.
Your "people with lots of money" needed better lawyers!

Mark B
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I thought they took your license away after three or four. I had no idea anybody had more than a hundred. Is that a record?
Click to expand...
About six months ago here in Texas, a man was sentenced to life in prison... after his tenth DUI conviction. And, those are just the ones he was caught.
 
markb5900 said:
2. Refusal to take a "test" is the SMARTEST thing you can do, they can't prove BAC then, it is your word against the arresting officers on the field sobriety test.
Click to expand...
Not in Wisconsin. If you refuse to take the BAC test, you're cooked. You can argue a lot of other things in court, but under Wisconsin law, there's just no way to fight that charge if you actually refused the test. See Section 343.305 of the Wisconsin statutes about that. The suspension is automatic, and that means a 61.15 report to the FAA within 60 days. The FAA will treat this as though you were guilty of DUI and act accordingly.

The real "smartest thing you can do" is make 100% certain that you don't drink and drive, in Wisconsin or any other jurisdiction.
 
markb5900 said:
Agree,
But facts are facts. She took no test, so there is NO WAY of knowing what her BAC was.
With that information, there is NO WAY to prove that she was above the legal limit
Click to expand...
That is simply not true, in Wisconsin or anywhere else. There are still plenty of ways to prove to a court beyond reasonable doubt that a driver who refused the blood/urine test was under the influence even if they don't know exactly what the driver's BAC was.
and I would "guess" that it WILL be plea bargained down to wreckless driving and have NO alcohol related offense on her record.
Click to expand...
That may be true from a driving record standpoint, but since she was originally arrested on an OUI charge, it still must be reported to the FAA.

BTW, that's "reckless," not "wreckless."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top