Drunk ATC?

All interesting, but as far as keeping his job he already resigned I believe.
 
Dr. O said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's not an issue for him to be unconscious but it would be an issue for him to be on the radio attempting to control traffic while hammered, and this probably happened before he passed out.
 
frcabot said:
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.
Click to expand...

MassPilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you are both talking about is a DUI sobriety test, which is something you agree to as a condition of getting your license. Being drunk in public (or in this case at work) doesn't fall under those statutes. When you get pulled over you can choose what type of test, but you cannot refuse the test because you have already agreed to it in writing when you were at the DMV. When you're not driving you haven't agreed to anything, and cannot be forced to submit. Whether or not it can be brought up in court or not is arguable.

To me finding someone guilty of being drunk because they refused a breathalyzer is akin to finding someone guilty of theft because they refused to let an officer search their home without a warrant.
 
StinkBug said:
What you are both talking about is a DUI sobriety test, which is something you agree to as a condition of getting your license. Being drunk in public (or in this case at work) doesn't fall under those statutes. When you get pulled over you can choose what type of test, but you cannot refuse the test because you have already agreed to it in writing when you were at the DMV. When you're not driving you haven't agreed to anything, and cannot be forced to submit. Whether or not it can be brought up in court or not is arguable.

To me finding someone guilty of being drunk because they refused a breathalyzer is akin to finding someone guilty of theft because they refused to let an officer search their home without a warrant.
Click to expand...
Yes, we were talking about a dui/fui. It can be used as an adverse inference in most cases in a criminal case. For example in a civil case asserting the right to remain silent can be used as an inference to find you civilly liable for the commission of the crime itself. The best policy is if you're not drunk and suspected of dui/fui, cooperate. Plus remember the act of refusal itself can also be a crime, separate from the DUI/FUI itself. If you are drunk, well... You're pretty much getting what you deserve. I guess you could try to delay as long as possible and opt for the blood test and try to work up a sweat.
 
Last edited:
StinkBug said:
What you are both talking about is a DUI sobriety test, which is something you agree to as a condition of getting your license. Being drunk in public (or in this case at work) doesn't fall under those statutes. When you get pulled over you can choose what type of test, but you cannot refuse the test because you have already agreed to it in writing when you were at the DMV. When you're not driving you haven't agreed to anything, and cannot be forced to submit. Whether or not it can be brought up in court or not is arguable.

To me finding someone guilty of being drunk because they refused a breathalyzer is akin to finding someone guilty of theft because they refused to let an officer search their home without a warrant.
Click to expand...

Yeah..
 
frcabot said:
... Plus remember the act of refusal itself can also be a crime, separate from the DUI/FUI itself.
Click to expand...

Is there any other scenario besides driving where this is true? Since this guy wasn't driving anything any comparison to DUI is kinda silly since the laws are completely different. Also, since he hasn't been charged with anything I'm betting none of those laws exist in that area anyways.
 
StinkBug said:
Is there any other scenario besides driving where this is true? Since this guy wasn't driving anything any comparison to DUI is kinda silly since the laws are completely different. Also, since he hasn't been charged with anything I'm betting none of those laws exist in that area anyways.
Click to expand...
Someone asked specifically about DUI / FUI so it was in response to that. Has no relevance on public intoxication, I'd imagine he was free to refuse anything he wants and that's probably what he correctly did. Refusing in any context other than dui/fui is almost certainly protected by the 5th amendment and probably couldn't even be mentioned to a jury.
 
frcabot said:
Someone asked specifically about DUI / FUI so it was in response to that. Has no relevance on public intoxication, I'd imagine he was free to refuse anything he wants and that's probably what he correctly did. Refusing in any context other than dui/fui is almost certainly protected by the 5th amendment and probably couldn't even be mentioned to a jury.
Click to expand...

Except an FAA test, which my guess is ATC folks are subject to.
 
Breaking News. Cop leaves drunk Air Traffic Controller in Tower because he wasn't driving or in public. Full story at 11:00 on the evening news.
 
Kritchlow said:
Except an FAA test, which my guess is ATC folks are subject to.
Click to expand...

Correct.

We're subject to random drug and alcohol screenings and there are certain parameters such as, can't produce a urine sample within x amount of time, we'll do a blood draw. Refusal is out of the question.

This is with the FAA though, and the person in question wasn't an FAA controller. No clue how its done in contract land.

Either way, fire the guy and burn his CTO.
 
NoHeat said:
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?
Click to expand...
So you're okay with cops arresting someone for something they obviously didn't do? Why didn't they go big time and arrest him for murder?
 
frcabot said:
Someone asked specifically about DUI / FUI so it was in response to that.
Click to expand...

Such is one major problem with this forum, people keep going off on tangents that turn into huge discussions that have nothing to do with the actual topic. :rolleyes::lol:
 
luvflyin said:
Breaking News. Cop leaves drunk Air Traffic Controller in Tower because he wasn't driving or in public. Full story at 11:00 on the evening news.
Click to expand...
Oh please. He could have just been fired and then threatened with trespassing. I'm sure he would have left without being arrested on a bogus charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top