RotorDude
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,321
- Display Name
Display name:
GliderDude
Drunk ATC?
- Thread starter RotorDude
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,252
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
ATSAP it and contact your NATCA rep buddy! 
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Long running thread on this here already.
Gucci Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 2,066
- Display Name
Display name:
Gucci Pilot
Highly doubt contracted ATC is the reason he decided to drink 10 Diamond Bears before/at work.
NoHeat
En-Route
Don't know, but I thought this was interesting:
"The officers arrested him on suspicion of public intoxication."
I think they used good judgment in arresting him for whatever charges that would allow them haul him away from the tower, but I'm just wondering ... is it really "public" if you work alone in a tower cab? If it is, then what if he peed in a cup at his desk while nobody was around, or what if you did the same while flying solo in your plane ... would that be public urination?
The tower is a public space, so it should apply.
No it's not. The public doesn't walk around and have access.
A.C.A. Section 5-71-101(6) defines public place as a place "to which the public or substantial numbers of the people have access." You think the public and/or substantial numbers of the people can walk into control towers whenever they please? No.
Last edited:
Sure we do, you can take a tour no worries.
That's not the definition of public place. And tours have to be approved by ATC at a time and place of their choosing. Or not at all. Hence it is not a public place. That's why it says things like "Restricted Area," "No access," etc.
Last edited:
The public even owns it. Whatever, I don't care, just trying to figure how they could apply it. If it was misapplied, I'm sure his lawyer took advantage of that to keep him out of jail.
Gucci Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 2,066
- Display Name
Display name:
Gucci Pilot
Arkansas' definition of a public place.
“a publicly or privately owned place to which the public or substantial numbers of people have access.” A.C.A. § 5-71-101(6)
How many constitutes substantial? That's up to the judge to decide. If I were the judge, I'd say him and his supervisor having access to the tower is a "substantial" number of people.
If you were the judge you'd be wrong. The statute would say "to which more than a single person has access." In which case private homes would be public places if more than one person lived there. Give me a break.
Substantial means of considerable number, many, a lot. Two is not a lot. You would be immediately reversed and probably sanctioned by an appellate court. Plus no prosecutor would make that argument.
Last edited:
Yeah, just because the public owns it doesn't mean it's a public place. The public owns nuclear facilities too but they're not public.
Two options: the cops made a mistake (likely) or the media made a mistake (likely) or both. Cops make improper/false arrests all the time.
The fact is not everything is a crime, nor should it be. Sometimes the most you can do is fire someone. This is a guy who probably is suffering from some sort of mental illness like depression or alcoholism and needs help and treatment, not jail time.
Gucci Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 2,066
- Display Name
Display name:
Gucci Pilot
If you were the judge you'd be wrong. The statute would say "to which more than a single person has access." In which case private homes would be public places if more than one person lived there. Give me a break.
Substantial means of considerable number, many, a lot. Two is not a lot. You would be immediately reversed and probably sanctioned by an appellate court. Plus no prosecutor would make that argument.
Well I guarantee more than him and his supervisor have access to it. Plus it isn't your home, it is a government building no different than a court house or a police station. He just happened to be the only one there at the time.
Yes it is. The difference is access to one building is strictly controlled and restricted, and access to others are not. Have you just walked into a control tower whenever you like without making prior arrangements? Joe Schmoe from off the street can do that?
Military bases are just like public parks.
And top-secret CIA black sites are like the post office.
And places with signs that say Restricted Area, No Entry, that you need keys/keycard to access are just like the Lincoln Memorial.
Are you trying to troll or do you really believe the nonsense you're spouting?
A principle canon of statutory interpretation is that the legislature is smart (ok, this is totally baloney) and that legislators use certain words for a reason. For example, if you are interpreting the statute to mean "public intoxication is any intoxication not in your own home," or "public intoxication is intoxication in any place that is OWNED by the government," then that's what the statute would say. The fact that it doesn't means your interpretation cannot possibly be correct.
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't disagree that jail time is counter productive. Depending on his time on the job, he may not even get fired. Substance abuse issues have at least one rehab shot under a lot of employment situations.
Yeah, that's because "alcoholism" itself is considered a "disease" protected by the ADA so you have to be given a shot at rehab. Only if you're unable to perform the functions of your job despite treatment can you usually be fired. But in a case where you show up to work drunk, you're being punished for the fact of being drunk and not for the fact that you suffer from alcoholism, so it tends to be a little murkier.
Another example is that in public housing, you can't be evicted for having a drug addiction, because drug addiction is a disability. You can, however, be evicted for DOING drugs.
That's where union representation comes in.
Gucci Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 2,066
- Display Name
Display name:
Gucci Pilot
If I was clearly drunk in a military base, or a top-secret CIA black site I would be hauled off in handcuffs. I've watched the former happen.
As far as my examples. The two police stations down the street require you to ring a bell and identify yourself before you are even let in the complex. Every courthouse I've been in that wasn't in Mayberry, USA required me to go through a metal detector as soon as I walked in the door.
I'm just saying that it is up to the court to decide and they will have to prove that:
1. He was in public
2. Have to prove he was drunk
3. Have to prove he was a danger to himself or others
What determines a "public place" is something he is gonna have to prove to the court, it is gonna very from state to state, county to county. Lighten up dude.
As far as my examples. The two police stations down the street require you to ring a bell and identify yourself before you are even let in the complex. Every courthouse I've been in that wasn't in Mayberry, USA required me to go through a metal detector as soon as I walked in the door.
I'm just saying that it is up to the court to decide and they will have to prove that:
1. He was in public
2. Have to prove he was drunk
3. Have to prove he was a danger to himself or others
What determines a "public place" is something he is gonna have to prove to the court, it is gonna very from state to state, county to county. Lighten up dude.
I've been drunk on plenty of military bases and never been hauled off in handcuffs. Alcohol flows freely in many places on base. I have no experience with CIA black sites but I'd imagine getting fired is a far greater concern than being arrested and having the charge thrown out later.
The fact that you go through a metal detector is not the definition of a public place or not. If anyone can go in by walking through a metal detector, it's obviously a place that's open to the public, hence a public place.
I'd argue that if you have to be buzzed to go in, it's not a public place. That's a closer call. However, why would the cops need to arrest you for being drunk in the police station?? Presumably you were drunk BEFORE you entered the police station, i.e. from the road or sidewalk which is indisputably a public place, and they could simply arrest you for that without having to get into a nitty gritty legal issue. So this is a really pointless analysis with no real-world application. I guarantee you that the charge of public intoxication in this instance will not hold up.
Each individual county does not get to decide for itself what is a public place or not. First, it's an issue of state law and depends on how the statute is defined. Here, public place means a place that is open to the public, etc. But the statute also has to comply with certain requirements of due process. If you're interpreting it to mean anything and everything, it would just say "you can't be drunk, period." So your statute would be unconstitutionally vague or arbitrary. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the state in question, and possibly the US Supreme Court if it's a constitutional question, will have the final say. And any court would/should apply basic canons of statutory interpretation. And under those principles, there is no way your interpretation holds up.
And no, he doesn't have to "prove" anything to the court. The burden is on the prosecution to prove everything in a criminal case, and to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a case in Arkansas in which the police arrested someone for public intoxication in someone else's home. They said pretty much what you did, which is "well other people were allowed access to the home so a private home is a public place hurrrrr durrrrrr duuuhhhh." What do you think happened?
Last edited:
StinkBug
Cleared for Takeoff
At this point #1 doesn't even matter because they cant prove #2. He refused to take a breath test, and since he wasn't driving a car they couldn't force him to. At this point all they have on him is the actions witnessed by others, which could have all sorts of reasons behind it. We all know he was drunk, but it wouldn't be hard to give a jury reasonable doubt when there isn't any real evidence.
You don't need a breathalizer or blood test to prove someone is intoxicated. People have been convicted for DUI when blowing below a 0.08 because you can legally be intoxicated without a breath test or even with a 0.01. It would ultimately be up to a jury to decide and if you blew a 0.01, I can't imagine a jury would convict, but juries certainly have convicted without breath/blood tests based on testimony of officers (e.g., I smelled alcohol on breath, speech was slurred, failed/refused to take sobriety test, etc.") At that point the evidence is circumstantial and not ironclad, but it would certainly be enough to go to the jury and have the jury decide whether they're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual was intoxicated. Remember also that intoxicated doesn't just mean alcohol, it could also mean drugs.
Last edited:
Gucci Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 2,066
- Display Name
Display name:
Gucci Pilot
A pilot roll call is a little different than an on base controller coming in to work, or someone driving onto base intoxicated(my example I was referring too, should have been more specific). Anyway this is a public forum and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I think they could prove it.Agreed, Bailey vs State and Mace vs. State, officer's testimony is enough. Don't even have to take a breathalyzer.
Yeah, driving onto base will do it, but pretty sure the arrest in that case would be for DUI and not public intoxication.A pilot roll call is a little different than an on base controller coming in to work, or someone driving onto base intoxicated(my example I was referring too, should have been more specific). Anyway this is a public forum and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Agreed, Bailey vs State and Mace vs. State, officer's testimony is enough. Don't even have to take a breathalyzer.
And yes, opinions are like *******s, everyone has one.
. Ultimately, lawyers (well, some types of lawyers) are paid to analyze the law and predict how the law applies in a given situation based on precedent, and when no specific precedent exists, based on the application of legal principles. So as a well-educated and well-paid attorney, I'd like to think I'm better at giving answers about this type of stuff than most. But it's not set in stone until the Supreme Court says it is. 
Last edited:
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,728
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
If an airline pilot shows up to work drunk they will get jail time. Why wouldn't ATC be the same?
Because there are specific crimnal statutes that apply to pilots that don't apply to controllers or others. The ones I am aware of prohibit even being in the flight deck drunk, even on the ground. So a pilot would be charged with the specific statute. It doesn't say anything about cobtrollers.
Last edited:
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,728
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Is not refusing the test considered the same as failing the test?
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,728
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Really/? Learn something new everyday.
Depends. Courts have come to different conclusions about whether refusing to take the test can be mentioned to the jury (ie whether it falls under right against self-incrimination or not). I think most have concluded it can be mentioned and even used as evidence that the person was drunk (referred to as evidence of a guilty mind, the same as running away from a cop who is telling you to pull over or to stop - - you're running/evading because you know you're guilty and trying not to be apprehended).
Some statutes actually criminalize the refusal to take a breathalizer or blood test itself, so you could simply be charged with that, but the statutes I'm aware of do give you the choice between the two tests. Plus, a judge can issue a warrant to have your blood drawn.
Last edited:
Yeah, both the federal government and states have FUI laws that roughly track the FAA requirements.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,728
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
I figured the Feds would have a similar law for ATC. So, are you saying it's not illegal for a controller to be drunk on the job?
It is most definitely illegal:
§120.19 Misuse of alcohol.
(a) This section applies to covered employees who perform air traffic control duties directly or by contract for an employer that is an air traffic control facility not operated by the FAA or the US military.
(b) Alcohol concentration. No covered employee shall report for duty or remain on duty requiring the performance of safety-sensitive functions while having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. No employer having actual knowledge that an employee has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(c) On-duty use. No covered employee shall use alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions. No employer having actual knowledge that a covered employee is using alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
(d) Pre-duty use. No covered employee shall perform air traffic control duties within 8 hours after using alcohol. No employer having actual knowledge that such an employee has used alcohol within 8 hours shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform air traffic control duties.
(e) Use following an accident. No covered employee who has actual knowledge of an accident involving an aircraft for which he or she performed a safety-sensitive function at or near the time of the accident shall use alcohol for 8 hours following the accident, unless he or she has been given a post-accident test under subpart F of this part or the employer has determined that the employee's performance could not have contributed to the accident.
(f) Refusal to submit to a required alcohol test. A covered employee may not refuse to submit to any alcohol test required under subpart F of this part. An employer may not permit an employee who refuses to submit to such a test to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,728
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Is that a regulation or a law?
It's a regulation. And then there is a law that attaches a penalty to violating any regulation issued under the federal aviation act. Some violations have a specific penalty, some just fall under the general provision.
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
Given that a majority of towered airports in the USA no longer have the minimum number of traffic movements to meet the criteria for having a tower, the tower controller being unconscious is not an issue any more than the tower being closed from 11pm to 6am as our local jetport does is an issue.
I have been told there is a local jetport meets the criteria for minimum number of controlled aircraft movements annually (barely) by collusion with the mechanics at the FBO who call for permission to push an aircraft around on the ramp even if it is just adjusting the chocks by 6 inches. An aircraft taxi to the run up area is a movement. When the run up is finished and it taxis to the hold short line that is a movement. When it is released to take the runway it is a movement.
Whut a clusterfrick on the taxpayers dime.
I have been told there is a local jetport meets the criteria for minimum number of controlled aircraft movements annually (barely) by collusion with the mechanics at the FBO who call for permission to push an aircraft around on the ramp even if it is just adjusting the chocks by 6 inches. An aircraft taxi to the run up area is a movement. When the run up is finished and it taxis to the hold short line that is a movement. When it is released to take the runway it is a movement.
Whut a clusterfrick on the taxpayers dime.
MassPilot
Cleared for Takeoff
I believe that in every state, with the exception of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the prosecution can mention to the jury of a DUI trial that the defendant refused a breath test.
Arrow67
Pre-Flight
Is that a law or a statute? Not the same.