Possession reduced to misconduct

mryan75 said:
This absolutely IS a political post, and as per usual is being allowed dependent on the content.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said it's a non-partisan political post whose outcome should interest all Americans, because the decision of the Supreme Court will settle a constitutional question regarding the separation of powers.
 
JOhnH said:
@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.
Click to expand...

And in any case calling a user ignorant is an ad hominem and does not really address the issue under discussion. Also is usually considered rude in a public forum.
 
mryan75 said:
What part of 18 violates the due process clause?
Click to expand...
I didn't say it did. I was just pointing out that there are rights that may apply. I don't know how the courts have interpreted it, but to my layman's mind, "due process" should at least mean that the decisions that are made should not be arbitrary, and should have a rational basis.
 
Bruce is wrong in general, but correct in the long run. In Virginia, the traffic stop itself IS AN ARREST by definition even if it doesn't lead to charges. If there's probable cause to enter a charge, there will the be a record that will exist, even if no pursued by the Commonwealth, and persists forever. However if the Commonwealth officially dismisses or declines prosecution, then the accused can take a positive step to have that arrest record expunged (and in this case it means it, unlike other things which are only sealed to public view).

And no, the name calling has no business here.
 
flyingron said:
Bruce is wrong in general, but correct in the long run. In Virginia, the traffic stop itself IS AN ARREST by definition even if it doesn't lead to charges. If there's probable cause to enter a charge, there will the be a record that will exist, even if no pursued by the Commonwealth, and persists forever. However if the Commonwealth officially dismisses or declines prosecution, then the accused can take a positive step to have that arrest record expunged (and in this case it means it, unlike other things which are only sealed to public view).

And no, the name calling has no business here.
Click to expand...
If I get pulled over in Virginia for speeding I've been arrested before the officer asks for my license and registration? I find that extraordinarily hard to believe.
 
Palmpilot said:
I didn't say it did. I was just pointing out that there are rights that may apply. I don't know how the courts have interpreted it, but to my layman's mind, "due process" should at least mean that the decisions that are made should not be arbitrary, and should have a rational basis.
Click to expand...
See this is why God made lawyers. First of all, rational has nothing to do with anything. There is no requirement for laws to be rational. The only requirement is that they be passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. And secondly I'm fairly certain there are federal laws, regulations, court decisions, etc. stacked a mile high that form the justification for basically every conceivable argument one could make for or against any entry one might make (or not make) in 18. This layman's lawyer stuff ("I feel it should be...") is really a non-starter.
 
3393RP said:
Perhaps I should have said it's a non-partisan political post whose outcome should interest all Americans, because the decision of the Supreme Court will settle a constitutional question regarding the separation of powers.
Click to expand...
Political post. Again.
 
midlifeflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points. And correct me if I am wrong but I believe we are in agreement that the notion that anyone here has been denied due process is just nonsense.
 
mryan75 said:
Agreed on all points. And correct me if I am wrong but I believe we are in agreement that the notion that anyone here has been denied due process is just nonsense.
Click to expand...
After seeing what I have seen my years of practicing law, most of them in litigation of one form or another, I cannot agree with you that no one here or elsewhere has been denied due process. I don't know everyone individual story and, if there was a hearing, I don't have the record.
 
flyingron said:
In Virginia, the traffic stop itself IS AN ARREST by definition
Click to expand...

This is just wrong. A traffic stop results in detention, but there is no custody in a traffic stop, ergo, no arrest. Here's the issue explained by an actual practicing attorney in the state of Virginia.

https://virginialawfirm.net/arrests/

The most common example is a traffic stop where a person is detained by the police. There is no question about the fact that a person is detained. For at least that moment in time, that person is not free to leave because the police have exerted an authoritative move like activating emergency equipment or stepping out of traffic to detain them. But a person is not under arrest at that time. Instead, it is an investigatory detention.
Click to expand...

The next question - will the explanation by a Virginia lawyer persuade you?
 
midlifeflyer said:
After seeing what I have seen my years of practicing law, most of them in litigation of one form or another, I cannot agree with you that no one here or elsewhere has been denied due process. I don't know everyone individual story and, if there was a hearing, I don't have the record.
Click to expand...
Remember the gibberish context in which we are discussing this:

Unit74 said:
Tell me, where is the legal standing for the FAA to use past accusations found not guilty or unsubstantiated against someone in a medical action? Has it been challenged by the Supreme court yet? To me it runs afoul of the 6th and perhaps the 7th Amendments at minimum. Guilty even if proven innocent seems to be the FAAs position. What gives them the right to cut across the grain of our legal protections?
Click to expand...

He's saying that the FAA even asking is unconstitutional. That's the due process he's talking about: it's a violation of the due process clause to even ask. Which is complete and total nonsense.
 
mryan75 said:
See this is why God made lawyers. First of all, rational has nothing to do with anything. There is no requirement for laws to be rational. The only requirement is that they be passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. And secondly I'm fairly certain there are federal laws, regulations, court decisions, etc. stacked a mile high that form the justification for basically every conceivable argument one could make for or against any entry one might make (or not make) in 18. This layman's lawyer stuff ("I feel it should be...") is really a non-starter.
Click to expand...
You're talking about what is. I'm talking about what should be. I agree that laws and regulations that have no rational basis can and do exist (unless or until the SCOTUS declares that they violate substantive due process), but that doesn't negate the point that government decisions should have a rational relationship to those laws and regulations. If, for example, an applicant meets the standards in the laws and regulations, but the Administrator denies the application because he just doesn't like the applicant, that would be an example of arbitrary government. And that would be more appropriate to a dictatorship than a republic.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
You're talking about what is. I'm talking about what should be. I agree that laws and regulations that have no rational basis can and do exist (unless or until the SCOTUS declares that they violate substantive due process), but that doesn't negate the point that government decisions should have a rational relationship to those laws and regulations. If, for example, an applicant meets the standards in the laws and regulations, but the Administrator denies the application because he just doesn't like the applicant, that would be an example of arbitrary government. And that would be more appropriate to a dictatorship than a republic.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't happen, so the point is...?
 
From a legal standpoint, a citation is given in lieu of physical arrest. Even for the most benign of acts. And it some jurisdictions all acts are misdemeanors or better. No such thing as an infraction. Texas is a perfect example of this while California has codified infractions such as speeding or stop sign violations. However, even in California, the officer can at his discretion take into custody the offender. A refusal to sign the ticket is most common, but rarely done.

The FAA is simply out of control and treats pilots differently than any other modalities. And that is a due process issue. Best we can tell is that the highest court has been challenged with the he argument yet it sounds like. CBPnis doing the same thing with boaters vs pilots. They can call in after crossing the adiz and be like, nope, nothing to declare but we have to land, X-ray treatment and a plane searched with a rad meter and compartment check.

Does anyone not see where I’m going with this?
 
mryan75 said:
...He's saying that the FAA even asking is unconstitutional. That's the due process he's talking about: it's a violation of the due process clause to even ask. Which is complete and total nonsense.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble finding where he said that. I found the following, but it's talking about how the information is used, not the mere collecting of it:

Unit74 said:
If it was dismissed or found not guilty, there is no legal standing for the FAA to use the data in an action against him.
Click to expand...
 
Unit74 said:
Your ignorance is spilling over Bruce. Perhaps you should stick to medicine.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should stick to railing at the situation. I am citing cases. Who's ignorant here? Does unit74 not see that the virginia lawyer AND my case citation renders his predrawn conclusion clearly incompatible with fact? This was an investigative detention.

I will cease to wrestle with the pig. I might have to take a shower...More Wheaties!
 
Last edited:
Unit74 said:
What I don't get is where the FAA thinks they can use an arrest to trigger all this other BS..... If it was dismissed or found not guilty, there is no legal standing for the FAA to use the data in an action against him. The Constitution was crafted for this very type of governmental encroachment.

Tell me, where is the legal standing for the FAA to use past accusations found not guilty or unsubstantiated against someone in a medical action? Has it been challenged by the Supreme court yet? To me it runs afoul of the 6th and perhaps the 7th Amendments at minimum. Guilty even if proven innocent seems to be the FAAs position. What gives them the right to cut across the grain of our legal protections?
Click to expand...
I’ll go back to the source, @Palmpilot, which was this post. There is no shortage of evidence to completely invalidate the argument made above. See: https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5409.PDF

There is literally decades of case law on this. So let me repeat: give me a break.
 
mryan75 said:
I’ll go back to the source, @Palmpilot, which was this post. There is no shortage of evidence to completely invalidate the argument made above. See: https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5409.PDF

There is literally decades of case law on this. So let me repeat: give me a break.
Click to expand...

Does it help if I point out that you two aren’t comparing apples and oranges?

In your example, you cite a case where an airman plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Yet the question is about the authority of the FAA to trigger things in the absence of legal conclusions, based solely on an arrest. This isn’t the same thing.
 
Unit74 said:
I think you have forgotten that the government is for the people, by the people. We some how have been led to believe that they are in control, not the people anymore. The FAA is always walking rough-shot over the people. Imagine if car drivers faced the same level of insanity pilots did. Pitchforks and sticks would soon follow. We are simply not a big enough or loud enough lobby to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

...and it’s “rough shod.” Like a horse which has been shod with gnarly shoes. Really tears things up. Just had to get that off my chest. Otherwise, good post.
 
Unit74 said:
I think you have forgotten that the government is for the people, by the people. We some how have been led to believe that they are in control, not the people anymore. The FAA is always walking rough-shot over the people. Imagine if car drivers faced the same level of insanity pilots did. Pitchforks and sticks would soon follow. We are simply not a big enough or loud enough lobby to do anything about it.
Click to expand...
I agree with unit74, sigh
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Try to take a gun into a court house and when they take it away from you start yelling at them about your constitutional rights and see how it works out for you.
Click to expand...

So then it is they that are breaking the rules and cannot read the Constitution. Not my fault.

I still agree with Unit74... sigh, that a conviction should be the only thing that stays on your record. Arrested and found not guilty should be deleted. I also, say that if convicted (non-violent), upon serving your sentence, full citizenship rights should be restored, voting, gun ownership, etc.
 
bflynn said:
Does it help if I point out that you two aren’t comparing apples and oranges?

In your example, you cite a case where an airman plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Yet the question is about the authority of the FAA to trigger things in the absence of legal conclusions, based solely on an arrest. This isn’t the same thing.
Click to expand...
"If not arrested and ticket was reduced to misconduct".
 
mryan75 said:
"If not arrested and ticket was reduced to misconduct".
Click to expand...

Yes. If not arrested and the ticket was reduced to a non-misdemeanor, then it becomes a non issue.

But in the case you quoted in support for yourself: "In the case at issue, the evidence establishes that respondent pled guilty to a misdemeanor in Maricopa County Justice Courts on April 27, 2007."

Then the pilot didn't report it.

This is not "not arrested and the ticket was reduced". Your supporting case does not cover something even close to the same situation.
 
bflynn said:
Yes. If not arrested and the ticket was reduced to a non-misdemeanor, then it becomes a non issue.
Click to expand...

Try to convince the FAA of that..... To them, it is a chance to send someone to regulatory purgatory.
 
bflynn said:
Do you have an example or just paranoid driven supposition?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that other pesky law called HIPA tends to get in the way. If it wasn’t so, guys like Bruce wouldn’t be needed, now would they?

I like how you used micro-aggression to counter your position though. Typically when someone is wrong, they do this to distract the truth. We call it the Deny, redirect and counter accusations method at work. It muddies the water and the party under duress Is given a moment to breathe while the noise is sorted though.
 
Unit74 said:
Sorry, that other pesky law called HIPA tends to get in the way. If it wasn’t so, guys like Bruce wouldn’t be needed, now would they?

I like how you used micro-aggression to counter your position though. Typically when someone is wrong, they do this to distract the truth. We call it the Deny, redirect and counter accusations method at work. It muddies the water and the party under duress Is given a moment to breathe while the noise is sorted though.
Click to expand...
It's HIPAA. If you are gonna attack someone, know your terms.
 
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