Is open container reportable?

[Unregistered]

So here is the thing I was recently given a ticket for an open container(which btw is a retarded law) in the car. I had poured myself some wine at a party, drank a couple glasses then drove toward home. I got stopped at a DUI checkpoint, blew a couple points under the limit but was given a ticket for having an open container. Do I have to report this on my medical? I never got a DUI arrest or ticket out of this. I paid the fine, made a plea in abeyance, and went on with my life. As long as I am a good boy for 4 more months this drops off my record. This happened back in April and now it is time to renew my medical. I don't see how this is reportable or am I missing something

 

[ClimbnSink]

Did you have a drink with you? I think it funny they can pop you on that bringing empties to be recycled. And there would be a lot less beer cans on the road without that law.

 

[flyingron]

You don't indicate where this occurred, but an open container law may indeed be a non-traffic violation (such as in Utah) which mandates reporting on question 18 w.

Note, by the way, there's no such thing as a legal alcohol level. The .08 is only the per se intoxication level where you are presumed intoxicated.

 

[bflynn]

Hmmm...might be a different issue, this might fall under 61.15

61.15 c) (1) seems to be very close to covering what you had. Let's parse it and see if you might have missed reporting something that might have had a 60 day window on it

Yes - A conviction
Yes - after November 29, 1990,
Yes - for the violation of any Federal or State statute
Yes - relating to the operation of a motor vehicle
Yes? - while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.

Maybe it wasn't a reportable motor vehicle action under 61.15. But you've got 4 solid yes answers there and a pretty strong 5th Yes since you were probably under the influence of alcohol.

I don't think this is what the FAA meant, but lawyers tend not to care what was meant, they tend to care what the words say. If this happened in late April then you might still have time to file within the 60 day window.

As far as your medical goes - your call.

 

[Henning]

Well, it doesn't really fall under the spirit of the regs, but technically.... I would report it and hope it is looked at and passed by for what it is. This kind of stupidity is why I put open containers in the trunk.

 

[Sac Arrow]

What's particularly retarded is the fact that it's a crime to have an "open container" in a motor vehicle, yet there is no prohibition against having an open container in an aircraft.

 

[Shawn]

Maybe it wasn't a reportable motor vehicle action under 61.15. But you've got 4 solid yes answers there and a pretty strong 5th Yes since you were probably under the influence of alcohol.

Even though he admittedly was under the influence albeit below the legal limit...what does the infraction or ticket say?...if there is no indication of DUI or DWI and it is simply an open container ticket, why would that need to be reported?

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmmm...might be a different issue, this might fall under 61.15

61.15 c) (1) seems to be very close to covering what you had. Let's parse it and see if you might have missed reporting something that might have had a 60 day window on it

Yes - A conviction
Yes - after November 29, 1990,
Yes - for the violation of any Federal or State statute
Yes - relating to the operation of a motor vehicle
Yes? - while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.

Maybe it wasn't a reportable motor vehicle action under 61.15. But you've got 4 solid yes answers there and a pretty strong 5th Yes since you were probably under the influence of alcohol.

I don't think this is what the FAA meant, but lawyers tend not to care what was meant, they tend to care what the words say. If this happened in late April then you might still have time to file within the 60 day window.

For the reasons mentioned, I strongly suggest you refer your question to an attorney familiar with both your state's laws and the FAA's regulations. And do so soon enough that if a 61.15 report is required, you'll make it within the 60-day window. That attorney should also be able to advise you on whether or not this needs to be reported on your next medical (even if it doesn't rise to a 61.15 report).

 

[Geico266]

Don't ask, don't tell.

Always better to ask for forgiveness than permission. It's a gray enough area to use the "I didn't know it was reportable." defense.

JMHO.

 

[poadeleted20]

Don't ask, don't tell.

Always better to ask for forgiveness than permission. It's a gray enough area to use the "I didn't know it was reportable." defense.

That defense doesn't work with the FAA on 61.15 and 61.59 issues, and I've seen people badly burned when they tried that route. I say again: "Obtain legal advice from a qualified attorney."

 

[jtheune]

under a somewhat related topic, does anyone have a definitive answer to the question of is transporting a growler of beer home considered a open container violation?

 

[Henning]

under a somewhat related topic, does anyone have a definitive answer to the question of is transporting a growler of beer home considered a open container violation?

If the container does not have a seal intact, it is fair game for an open container ticket.

 

[Matthew]

under a somewhat related topic, does anyone have a definitive answer to the question of is transporting a growler of beer home considered a open container violation?

In KS, an open container can be transported in a vehicle if it is locked in the trunk, locked in an interior storage area, or (in the case of an SUV or minivan, or similar) on the floor behind the rearmost seat in an area not normally accessible by a passenger. Basically, it can't be where anyone inside the car can get to it.

 

[Unregistered]

ignorance is no excuse as far as the FAA is concerned. I just don't want to report anything I don't have to. Since the answer is mixed I suppose I will have to consult a lawyer. It was my mistake for not putting the open bottle of wine in the trunk. The funny thing is that people can put closed minis in plastic bags and legally bring them on the airplane and secretly mix themselves a drink(happens a lot more than you think). This happened to me on the 30th of April. The funny thing is that it simply depends on what state you are in. In Montana you not only can have an open container but you can drink a cocktail while driving or at least that is how it used to be. If you aren't over the limit it shouldn't even matter if the container is open or closed. Hell I could just disguise the wine with a bottle of mountain dew and they would be none the wiser. Same with vodka and a water bottle. What a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[ateamer]

If he wasn't arrested for DUI, he wasn't under the influence as far as law enforcement is concerned.

 

[dentonf250]

Also to ad to this is that an empty beer can or liquor bottle is not considered an open container unless there is something in it that you can drink. If it is empty, it is no different than any other can or bottle just because it says beer or tequila on the bottle. Also as stated before, if the container seal is broken, it must be in a locked compartment out of reach of the driver or behind the last occupieable seat in the vehicle.

 

[SkyDog58]

I would say no, it is not reportable.

The criteria is "... relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug."

If you did not blow over the legal limit nor failed a field sobriety test; you do not meet that criteria. If you did meet that criteria, the cops would not have allowed you to drive away which I am assuming they did.

Open container is a completely different issue as it applies to any person in the vehicle having an open container regardless of impairment. And even though the driver is ticketed for it, it says nothing about impairment or intoxication.

Not reportable.

 

[SkyDog58]

I will add that I also think the open container law is stupid. Here is why:

You used to be able to swing buy and pick up a single cold beer or even a six pack and drink one or two on the way home and not be drunk by the time you get there. Now, if you want that cold beer after work before you get home, you have to go into the bar to have it. Once there, you are more likely to have multiple beers before getting up and driving home thereby increasing the chances of driving while intoxicated. The law ends up having the opposite effect than desired. Just my suspicion, I have no evidence or data to back it up.

 

[timwinters]

Some in this thread assume that all states have similar open container laws but that's just not the case.

Here in Missouri, and empty container is not considered an open container. Also, the open container law only applies to the driver. Passengers are free to consume alcohol while cruising down the highway.

 

[SkyDog58]

Some in this thread assume that all states have similar open container laws but that's just not the case.

Here in Missouri, and empty container is not considered an open container. Also, the open container law only applies to the driver. Passengers are free to consume alcohol while cruising down the highway.

Well then, I like the Missouri law because if me and my buddy get pulled over, whoever is the passenger is going to claim to be a two fisted drinker.

 

[Geico266]

If he wasn't arrested for DUI, he wasn't under the influence as far as law enforcement is concerned.

I would say no, it is not reportable.

The criteria is "... relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug."

If you did not blow over the legal limit nor failed a field sobriety test; you do not meet that criteria. If you did meet that criteria, the cops would not have allowed you to drive away which I am assuming they did.

Open container is a completely different issue as it applies to any person in the vehicle having an open container regardless of impairment. And even though the driver is ticketed for it, it says nothing about impairment or intoxication.

Not reportable.

100%

 

[SbestCFII]

Not according to the FAA. They state in 91.17 that you can't fly within 8 hours of consuming alcohol and you can't fly with a BAC of 0.04 (or presumably higher). So in essence, as long as it's been more than 8 hours since you drank and your alcohol level is below 0.04, then you are legal to fly an aircraft. Stupid...yes, but illegal...no.

 

[SbestCFII]

It is certainly plausible though.

 

[Geico266]

ignorance is no excuse as far as the FAA is concerned. I just don't want to report anything I don't have to.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse why did you drive with an open container in the car after drinking?

If ignornace is no excuse you need to send your pilots licence in immediately until you can be cleared or convicted in an administrative law court. Hiring an attorney @ $250+ per hour and having a hearing in front of an administrative law judge is the course you have chosen. You know you have violated FAA regulations so pretending you didn't is no excuse. Your flying privileges are suspended under the FARS.

Of course you are not going to do that.

It is a non reportable moving traffic violation. Keep it that way, or be prepared to spend $ 5,000 - $10,000 to get your licence back.

 

[James331]

You need to talk to a lawyer or maybe even a clerk in the place you got the ticket.

Some of the yokle local type towns don't report those tickets outside of their township, there is a decent chance that the ticket won't show up anywhere, especially if you give them your money, which is really all they want anyways.

 

[bflynn]

If he wasn't arrested for DUI, he wasn't under the influence as far as law enforcement is concerned.

Says some guy on the internet

A different guy on the internet says if BAC > .001 then you're considered under the influence.

The question is - do you want to trust your flying future to the legal opinions of some guy on the internet.

Consult with a lawyer. Come clean and be humble about it. You won't always get a lesser sentence, but if you make a mistake and you're trying to correct for it, you'll go a lot further than if you try to bluff your way through it.

 

[flyingron]

If the container does not have a seal intact, it is fair game for an open container ticket.

Again, it depends entirely on the state.

In some states, it says "seal". A lot of places that fill growlers will shrink wrap a plastic seal on the top to show that it is indeed still sealed.

In my state, all that is required is that it is securely closed.

 

[bflynn]

I would say no, it is not reportable.

The criteria is "... relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug."

If you did not blow over the legal limit nor failed a field sobriety test; you do not meet that criteria. If you did meet that criteria, the cops would not have allowed you to drive away which I am assuming they did.

Open container is a completely different issue as it applies to any person in the vehicle having an open container regardless of impairment. And even though the driver is ticketed for it, it says nothing about impairment or intoxication.

Not reportable.

The problem is the phrase "under the influence". It all turns on that definition, doesn't it. .04 is good enough not to get arrested, but I think (and I believe the FAA chief counsel would say) that at .04 you are under the influence.

I don't think that's the spirit but it's what is written.

 

[Geico266]

The problem is the phrase "under the influence". It all turns on that definition, doesn't it. .04 is good enough not to get arrested, but I think (and I believe the FAA chief counsel would say) that at .04 you are under the influence.

I don't think that's the spirit but it's what is written.

He has not been charged, arrested, or convicted of being " under the influence". He received a moving violation. Period.

That should be his story and he should stick to it.

Wasting up to $10,000 on an attorney fighting this is pretty silly when there is need.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Was the open container citation in question an infraction or a misdemeanor?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Not according to the FAA. They state in 91.17 that you can't fly within 8 hours of consuming alcohol and you can't fly with a BAC of 0.04 (or presumably higher). So in essence, as long as it's been more than 8 hours since you drank and your alcohol level is below 0.04, then you are legal to fly an aircraft. Stupid...yes, but illegal...no.

Not quite see bolded, dunno if the FAA has ever nailed anyone for it but under (2) flying with a hangover or over 8 hours under .04 but still buzzed is a gotcha. Guessing if they have cause to get a BAC and it is more then zero you are toasted.
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft—
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;

 

[jtheune]

Again, it depends entirely on the state.

In some states, it says "seal". A lot of places that fill growlers will shrink wrap a plastic seal on the top to show that it is indeed still sealed.

In my state, all that is required is that it is securely closed.

While it's all a local issue I can say that my purchases of growlers in Maryland did not include a shrink wrap.
To get some aviation back in here, I flew over to Cape May airport and there is a microbrewery on the grounds of the airport and I walked over to get a growler there. Of course I had to wait until after I flew back to Lee to sample the beverage but did so while tying down and cleaning up the aircraft oh and it was not shrink wrapped in DE.

 

[Matthew]

The last couple times we did any sort of wine-tasting, the places all had ways to seal an open bottle of wine inside a plastic bag with a heat sealer.

I tend to think the 'open container' law is there just to give an out - you get a misdemeanor ticket vs something more serious. Or, it can be used as an excuse for further investigation.

I rode along with a cop buddy many years ago late on a Saturday night in a college town. He pulled over some kid for something - burned out brake light, whatever - and went over to talk. He noticed an open beer under the seat. Kid seemed sober, was legal age, was talking friendly enough to indicate nothing other than just a kid out cruising around and minding his own business, so no sense in trying to do a FST or any other escalation. The ticket would have been "open container", but my buddy just told the kid to pour out the beer, fix the brake light, be careful, and have a nice night.

 

[Zeldman]

The last couple times we did any sort of wine-tasting, the places all had ways to seal an open bottle of wine inside a plastic bag with a heat sealer.

I tend to think the 'open container' law is there just to give an out - you get a misdemeanor ticket vs something more serious. Or, it can be used as an excuse for further investigation.

I rode along with a cop buddy many years ago late on a Saturday night in a college town. He pulled over some kid for something - burned out brake light, whatever - and went over to talk. He noticed an open beer under the seat. Kid seemed sober, was legal age, was talking friendly enough to indicate nothing other than just a kid out cruising around and minding his own business, so no sense in trying to do a FST or any other escalation. The ticket would have been "open container", but my buddy just told the kid to pour out the beer, fix the brake light, be careful, and have a nice night.

That's called officer discretion. Your cop buddy saw no foreseeable problem and sent the kid home. Worked good years ago. Now with so many watchdog "my rights come before your rights" groups everywhere, discretion will get your career ended just for thinking for yourself.

I was 19 and had too much to drink and was stopped by a cop. He stuck his finger in my face and told me to go straight home or he would call my dad. Point well taken. I did just that and I have not driven in that shape for over 37 years.

 

[ateamer]

Says some guy on the internet



A different guy on the internet says if BAC > .001 then you're considered under the influence.



The question is - do you want to trust your flying future to the legal opinions of some guy on the internet.



Consult with a lawyer. Come clean and be humble about it. You won't always get a lesser sentence, but if you make a mistake and you're trying to correct for it, you'll go a lot further than if you try to bluff your way through it.

Says a law enforcement officer in his 27th year in the job. Under the influence means that field sobriety tests were administered and the officerdetermined, based on the overall performance, that the driver was in fact under the influence of alcohol. The second way to be considered under the influence is to have a BAC of .08% or higher; the law presumes that at that level, a person is under the influence.

There might be studies, opinions or even evidence that .001% causes a person's reactions, coordination and decision making to be affected, but that's not the case for the purposes of this discussion.

The OP wanted to know if an open container ticket is considered an alcohol driving offense for his medical. It isn't.

 

[Matthew]

That's called officer discretion. Your cop buddy saw no foreseeable problem and sent the kid home. Worked good years ago. Now with so many watchdog "my rights come before your rights" groups everywhere, discretion will get your career ended just for thinking for yourself.

I was 19 and had too much to drink and was stopped by a cop. He stuck his finger in my face and told me to go straight home or he would call my dad. Point well taken. I did just that and I have not driven in that shape for over 37 years.

Same night of that ride-along. Stopped someone for speeding, something like 40 in a 20 at about 11pm on a street with very little traffic. After he came back from her car and sat back in our car, even I could smell the wine she'd been drinking. He gave her a FST - she was right on the edge. He gave her a portable breathalyzer, and again, she was right at the limit. To make it stick, he would have to take her to the station, observe her for x minutes to make sure she wasn't chewing gum, drinking, whatever, and by then she would probably have blown under the limit. So he did the same thing your guy did - he gave her the business until she cried. "You just graduated college! What are you thinking! This breathalyzer and field sobriety test shows you are above the limits. Do you really want a DUI on your record when you go out and try to get a job?!? What are your parents going to think?!!"

He let her call a friend to come pick her up and that was that, his last words about it were, "I hope that lesson sticks".

He's still a cop, but I lost touch with him a long time ago.

 

[bullwinkle]

Am I to understand this person was driving down the road, having been drinking, with an open alcoholic beverage in their hand or within reach?

Even if not illegal, that's not too bright. Kind of Dudley Moore-ish

If I have the facts wrong, I apologize.

 

[LuisO]

i was my mistake for not putting the open bottle of wine in the trunk. .

The bigger question here is WHO brings a bottle of wine to a party, drinks 2 glasses and THEN takes the bottle back home with them....I knew pilots were cheap but I didn't know we were THAT cheap.

(post made in total jest, OP)

 

[bflynn]

He has not been charged, arrested, or convicted of being " under the influence". He received a moving violation. Period.

That should be his story and he should stick to it.

Wasting up to $10,000 on an attorney fighting this is pretty silly when there is need.

That depends on the locale. In North Carolina, I think open container is a misdemeanor and an infraction of state law. If you pay the fine, you plea guilty and therefore have a conviction.

As I identified in my first post, this is a borderline situation. My opinion is that the FAA lawyer will do what lawyers do and parse it the way I said, then conclude that it was a technical violation of 61.15

 

[kayoh190]

The bigger question here is WHO brings a bottle of wine to a party, drinks 2 glasses and THEN takes the bottle back home with them...

I was kind of wondering this myself.