False DUI Arrests and the FAA

J

Jon Wilder

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
613
Display Name
Jwylde
I happened to see a news video where three drivers were arrested for DUI by the same arresting officer, yet the drivers happened to be sober.


And it appears that more and more authorities are moving away from breathalyzer tests and moving towards blood tests since breathalyzer tests only detect alcohol. With the legalization of marijuana by many states, this makes perfect sense. The downside is that it results in arrests based on an Officer’s “gut feelings”.

But to the point of those arrested who turned out to be clean, how would the FAA treat these individuals? Would they have to report it and be subject to the HIMS battery if they were to apply for a medical certificate?
 
Last edited:
MountainDude said:
The Union will find a way to explain his actions and keep him on the force.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the veil of qualified immunity is being slowly dismantled, or at least the "qualified" part is being held in more strict context; recently a citizen was awarded a huge judgement against a police officer.
 
Yes. They would likely be sent for a HIMS evaluation. I know a guy who bled a 0.0 and got conscripted…

Gotta report the arrest. He was in rehab when the blood results came back. Too late…

If GA it’s a “what’s the harm in being overly cautious” justification attitude, if a union airline, it’s a money grab. If a small airline without a HIMS program, more of an unknown, but not promising.

Interesting how we’re up in arms over this. 10 THOUSAND a year killed by impaired drivers. If they were sober, they had to buy a cab ride home and couldn’t operate a vehicle for 24 hrs. If blood comes back clean, it all goes away. Driving is privilege, right?

But if the faa THINKS YOU MIGHT have a drinking problem, it’s incarceration, loss of basic rights, loss of income/job/career, ramifications for the REST of your career, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Better safe than sorry, and ZERO people killed (part 121). But hey, it’s a privilege, right?
 
Last edited:
You are required to report arrests, and will be asked to provide data related to the arrest, BAC test results, etc. Presumably the zero point zero BAC from the blood test would exonerate you in the eyes of the FAA reviewing the incident.
 
Brad Z said:
You are required to report arrests, and will be asked to provide data related to the arrest, BAC test results, etc. Presumably the zero point zero BAC from the blood test would exonerate you in the eyes of the FAA reviewing the incident.
Click to expand...
As covered in the news story, some municipalities have dropped the breathalyzer in favor of a blood test, as the blood tests shows more than just alcohol. But some drivers are waiting as long as 8 months to get lab results back. This far exceeds the 60 day window, thus you’re going to report the arrest, but not have a BAC to show for it.

This has much larger ramifications that go beyond the driver license, and most municipalities are completely unaware of just how deep into a person’s life this reaches.
 
Last edited:
Jon Wilder said:
As covered in the news story, some municipalities have dropped the breathalyzer in favor of a blood test, as the blood tests shows more than just alcohol. But some drivers are waiting as long as 8 months to get lab results back. This far exceeds the 60 day window, thus you’re going to report the arrest, but not have a BAC to show for it.

This has much larger ramifications that go beyond the driver license, and most municipalities are completely uncleared of just how deep into a person’s life this reaches.
Click to expand...
What worries me about this is a forced medical procedure. Albeit a minor one, however the fact that someone can take my blood without my permission is not cool with me. I want that decision to be between me and my doctor.

What happens if a blood draw is refused?
 
Unintended consequences for sure. That’s more on the faa than local law enforcement.

Forcing a blood draw is a bit draconian though and generally not allowed by pilot unions… with the HIMS program being unofficially exempted.
 
Roadside, You lose your driving “privileges” most likely.

Refusals are well detailed in 49cfr40/14cfr120. Different than “roadside”. Safety sensitive DOT blah blah.

HIMS is not codified.
 
The city encouraging DUI sensitivity is a good thing.

Failure to monitor for officer over aggressive activity is a very bad thing.

The pilots attorney's failure to also sue the officer for his false accusations under oath is just as bad as the city's failure. Yes, the officer is protected by law, but he should be subject to the trial to prove he had immunity, and did not falsely accuse under oath, and have that trial, win or loose, on his resume the rest of his life.

Not much likelihood of big money for that effort, so not an issue the attorney is interested in. Attorneys are inclined o see injustice only when there is big money to be had.


If the pilot in question did get put in HIMS, he should have sued the FAA for discrimination, for putting him in a procedure without any evidence of guilt.
 
Last edited:
Jon Wilder said:
I happened to see a news video where three drivers were arrested for DUI by the same arresting officer, yet the drivers happened to be sober.


And it appears that more and more authorities are moving away from breathalyzer tests and moving towards blood tests since breathalyzer tests only detect alcohol. With the legalization of marijuana by many states, this makes perfect sense. The downside is that it results in arrests based on an Officer’s “gut feelings”.
Click to expand...
Any department that is allowing arrests based on gut feelings deserves to be shut down.

However, those without training and experience might not understand how standardized field sobriety tests and objective drug influence evaluations work, and categorize them as feelings.

But if the officer wasn’t using SFSTs and either the DRE or DAR process, he shouldn’t be on the job anymore. The training is universally available at little or no cost to the departments, and it costs nothing to follow the standards. Sadly, there actualy are still departments out there that refuse to operate like it’s any time past the 1950s.
 
Tools said:
Yes. They would likely be sent for a HIMS evaluation. I know a guy who bled a 0.0 and got conscripted…

Gotta report the arrest. He was in rehab when the blood results came back. Too late…

If GA it’s a “what’s the harm in being overly cautious” justification attitude, if a union airline, it’s a money grab. If a small airline without a HIMS program, more of an unknown, but not promising.

Interesting how we’re up in arms over this. 10 THOUSAND a year killed by impaired drivers. If they were sober, they had to buy a cab ride home and couldn’t operate a vehicle for 24 hrs. If blood comes back clean, it all goes away. Driving is privilege, right?

But if the faa THINKS YOU MIGHT have a drinking problem, it’s incarceration, loss of basic rights, loss of income/job/career, ramifications for the REST of your career, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Better safe than sorry, and ZERO people killed (part 121). But hey, it’s a privilege, right?
Click to expand...
Both sides of that equation (inequality?) need to move.
 
geezer said:
The city encouraging DUI sensitivity is a good thing.

Failure to monitor for officer over aggressive activity is a very bad thing.

The pilots attorney's failure to also sue the officer for his false accusations under oath is just as bad as the city's failure. Yes, the officer is protected by law, but he should be subject to the trial to prove he had immunity, and did not falsely accuse under oath, and have that trial, win or loose, on his resume the rest of his life.

Not much likelihood of big money for that effort, so not an issue the attorney is interested in. Attorneys are inclined o see injustice only when there is big money to be had.
Click to expand...
A defense attorney is rarely going to be the same attorney handling a civil suit. If the pilot wants to sue, it’s on him to advance the case. He can ask his defense attorney, who would refer him to a civil attorney. And then, he civil suit will cost a lot to move forward. Unless it’s a personal injury case with the high likelihood of an insurance settlement, they’re not going to advance costs.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Anyone with authority has the ability to abuse it, unless held accountable. The latter is what’s lacking and needs to be brought into check in so many areas of the Gov.
Click to expand...
Example in point. A rural small town community with one cop on duty. On a busy main highway. It makes me wonder what else….
www.kimt.com

Former North Iowa police officer pleads guilty to threatening and assaulting women

Law enforcement says he choked two women and threatened them with a Taser.
www.kimt.com www.kimt.com
 
bbchien said:
I have always thought that LEOs, need state licensure boards. Heck I've put up with that for more than 40 years....
Click to expand...
Many or most states have essentially that. In California, it’s called the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. There are various levels of POST certification, and there are annual training requirements to maintain certification. Arizona POST is especially noted for being willing to revoke certification for officers committing misconduct, and California now has the structure in law to do so more easily.
 
It's terrifying how exposed we are. Even getting charged puts your whole career on the line with the FAA, regardless of the court outcome. It’s not about the misdemeanor; it's about the FAA seeing that state license suspension as a sign of substance abuse, and that's a career killer.

You can't just get a plea deal. You have to attack the evidence and the administrative process perfectly to save your ticket.

If this happens in the Indiana area, you absolutely need a trial lawyer who knows the stakes. Wruble Law is a firm I've seen mentioned for that kind of intense, aggressive defense. Don't risk your certificate with anything less
 
Are you not given an opportunity to also get and pay for your own independent blood test in all states?
 
Depending on the state you can refuse all roadside tests but not a blood draw or breathalyzer after arrest. A DUI conviction is way worse than administratively losing your driving privileges. Both are bad but one means a record that follows you forever.

As for roadside sobriety tests Lawyers are equally split. Some say never consent to roadside test as they are designed to make you fail and are HIGHLY subjective. Other lawyers say submit to roadside tests and then fight the officers findings in court. It all depends on your state.

Can cops jam you up? Gonna say yes to that. My time in corrections and dealing with all levels of police made me aware that there are good and bad folks in every profession.
 
New law in Florida criminalize refusing road side test.
A new Florida law, effective October 1, 2025, makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to refuse a lawful request for a breath or urine test following a DUI arrest. This amendment—commonly referred to as “Trenton’s Law”—represents one of the most significant changes to Florida’s DUI enforcement in recent years.
 
bonefishpete said:
New law in Florida criminalize refusing road side test.
A new Florida law, effective October 1, 2025, makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to refuse a lawful request for a breath or urine test following a DUI arrest. This amendment—commonly referred to as “Trenton’s Law”—represents one of the most significant changes to Florida’s DUI enforcement in recent years.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that, but after arrest the Miranda's warning says anything you say or do may be used against you, so my advice for what it's worth is don't say or do anything.
 
I watched a YouTube recently that got me wondering. The woman was not heavily drunk but was definitely at least mildly under the influence. She was extremely cooperative and respectful. She acted very lucid and asked intelligent questions and wasn’t rude or repetitive or annoying like most drunks would be. She did not appear to be a “high tolerance” drunk either. She didn’t do horribly on the field sobriety test but even on a video there were definitely signs of some impairment. She was also given horrible advice. Her father and a family friend supposedly a lawyer told her to never submit to the blood test. Perhaps her father was confused by the lawyers advice and they meant to not submit to the FST, but he and his daughter had that firmly in their heads.

After reading her her rights, the cop insisted she answer whether she would agree to a blood test without consulting with anyone. “She’s an adult and it’s her choice”. She was understandably confused because as the cop explained it to her it made no sense to her why she should refuse, but it had been drilled in to her to do so, so she wanted to clarify.

I understand that a license in Florida implies consent to the test, and I understand why you lose your privileges if you refuse the test.

However, I don’t understand how they can prevent you from seeking council before answering the question. This seems especially unfair to a drunk person who in other circumstances like “rape” is unable to consent to anything. I also get why you can’t take hours finding council, but in this case, her father was on the phone and the cop refused to let him give her advice (even though he wanted to give her horrible advice. I think there’s a small chance she wasn’t quite over). She even insisted very politely that she had a right to council and the cop said she did not. Can any of the legal trained folks among us help me understand this one?
 
Last edited:
I haven't followed this thread closely so it may have been mentioned already but I like the quip by Ron White:

"I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have the ability." :nono:
 
Salty said:
I watched a YouTube recently that got me wondering. The woman was not heavily drunk but was definitely at least mildly under the influence. She was extremely cooperative and respectful. She acted very lucid and asked intelligent questions and wasn’t rude or repetitive or annoying like most drunks would be. She did not appear to be a “high tolerance” drunk either. She didn’t do horribly on the field sobriety test but even on a video there were definitely signs of some impairment. She was also given horrible advice. Her father and a family friend supposedly a lawyer told her to never submit to the blood test. Perhaps her father was confused by the lawyers advice and they meant to not submit to the FST, but he and his daughter had that firmly in their heads.

After reading her her rights, the cop insisted she answer whether she would agree to a blood test without consulting with anyone. “She’s an adult and it’s her choice”. She was understandably confused because as the cop explained it to her it made no sense to her why she should refuse, but it had been drilled in to her to do so, so she wanted to clarify.

I understand that a license in Florida implies consent to the test, and I understand why you lose your privileges if you refuse the test.

However, I don’t understand how they can prevent you from seeking council before answering the question. This seems especially unfair to a drunk person who in other circumstances like “rape” is unable to consent to anything. I also get why you can’t take hours finding council, but in this case, her father was on the phone and the cop refused to let him give her advice (even though he wanted to give her horrible advice. I think there’s a small chance she wasn’t quite over). She even insisted very politely that she had a right to council and the cop said she did not. Can any of the legal trained folks among us help me understand this one?
Click to expand...
In many states it is specifically said during the implied consent test request that you do not have the right to consult council prior to making the decision to take the test or not. It’s part of the civil agreement for holding a license. Think of it this way you say by taking in a license you will submit to a state’s test when asked or suffer the consequence if you are refusing when asked. DL actions are civil in nature, the DUI is also a criminal act.
 
Salty said:
I watched a YouTube recently that got me wondering. The woman was not heavily drunk but was definitely at least mildly under the influence. She was extremely cooperative and respectful. She acted very lucid and asked intelligent questions and wasn’t rude or repetitive or annoying like most drunks would be. She did not appear to be a “high tolerance” drunk either. She didn’t do horribly on the field sobriety test but even on a video there were definitely signs of some impairment. She was also given horrible advice. Her father and a family friend supposedly a lawyer told her to never submit to the blood test. Perhaps her father was confused by the lawyers advice and they meant to not submit to the FST, but he and his daughter had that firmly in their heads.

After reading her her rights, the cop insisted she answer whether she would agree to a blood test without consulting with anyone. “She’s an adult and it’s her choice”. She was understandably confused because as the cop explained it to her it made no sense to her why she should refuse, but it had been drilled in to her to do so, so she wanted to clarify.

I understand that a license in Florida implies consent to the test, and I understand why you lose your privileges if you refuse the test.

However, I don’t understand how they can prevent you from seeking council before answering the question. This seems especially unfair to a drunk person who in other circumstances like “rape” is unable to consent to anything. I also get why you can’t take hours finding council, but in this case, her father was on the phone and the cop refused to let him give her advice (even though he wanted to give her horrible advice. I think there’s a small chance she wasn’t quite over). She even insisted very politely that she had a right to council and the cop said she did not. Can any of the legal trained folks among us help me understand this one?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can litigate on the shoulder of the road. Exactly how long are you allowed allowed time for said consulting?
 
As the above shows every state is gonna have its own unique standards. Alcohol doesn't stay in the system long so a blood or breath/urine test cannot be delayed for long. The last three states I lived in all made FSTs voluntary (without penalty) and only caught a criminal charge if you refused blood/urine/breath tests at a hospital. If you're in that situation you might as well take the test.

If your state allows it, ALWAYS deny field sobriety tests. If LEO is gonna arrest you they already made up their mind. A FST is just the cherry on top.

If you have any alcohol in your system you will get either a DUI (over the limit) or if under, some some sort of driving while impaired charge... both are criminal.
 
bonefishpete said:
New law in Florida criminalize refusing road side test.
A new Florida law, effective October 1, 2025, makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to refuse a lawful request for a breath or urine test following a DUI arrest. This amendment—commonly referred to as “Trenton’s Law”—represents one of the most significant changes to Florida’s DUI enforcement in recent years.
Click to expand...
This is not the road side test. This is the test they do at the station after you've been arrested. This is the one where they will suspend your license if you refuse it.

This is the exact 2025 Florida Statute -

316.1932 Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.—
(1)(a)1.a. A person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The chemical or physical breath test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Click to expand...

The test MUST be incidental to a lawful arrest. Not detained on the side of the road.
 
Salty said:
I watched a YouTube recently that got me wondering. The woman was not heavily drunk but was definitely at least mildly under the influence. She was extremely cooperative and respectful. She acted very lucid and asked intelligent questions and wasn’t rude or repetitive or annoying like most drunks would be. She did not appear to be a “high tolerance” drunk either. She didn’t do horribly on the field sobriety test but even on a video there were definitely signs of some impairment. She was also given horrible advice. Her father and a family friend supposedly a lawyer told her to never submit to the blood test. Perhaps her father was confused by the lawyers advice and they meant to not submit to the FST, but he and his daughter had that firmly in their heads.

After reading her her rights, the cop insisted she answer whether she would agree to a blood test without consulting with anyone. “She’s an adult and it’s her choice”. She was understandably confused because as the cop explained it to her it made no sense to her why she should refuse, but it had been drilled in to her to do so, so she wanted to clarify.

I understand that a license in Florida implies consent to the test, and I understand why you lose your privileges if you refuse the test.

However, I don’t understand how they can prevent you from seeking council before answering the question. This seems especially unfair to a drunk person who in other circumstances like “rape” is unable to consent to anything. I also get why you can’t take hours finding council, but in this case, her father was on the phone and the cop refused to let him give her advice (even though he wanted to give her horrible advice. I think there’s a small chance she wasn’t quite over). She even insisted very politely that she had a right to council and the cop said she did not. Can any of the legal trained folks among us help me understand this one?
Click to expand...
In Florida, you can refuse all roadside tests without legal consequences. The test that you cannot refuse without legal consequences is the test that is done incidental to arrest.

Read Florida Statute 316.1932(1)(a)1.a.
 
Here's the deal...you're far more likely to talk your way into an arrest than out of one. Roadside sobriety tests are not standardized and are designed for you to fail them.

The best things you can do for yourself -

"I don't answer questions without a lawyer."

"I don't consent to searches."

"I don't consent to roadside sobriety tests."

"I hereby invoke my right to remain silent."

You have no duty to assist officers in their investigations. You have no duty to hand evidence over without a warrant.

The cop may arrest you (absolutely do the chemical test following the arrest...but this will be done at the station). So long as your post-arrest chemical test comes back clean, the judge is going to find no probable cause. Refusal of roadside sobriety tests can never be used as evidence of guilt, nor can it be used as probable cause.

Upon your case being dismissed for no PC, you can turn around and sue the cops who arrested you. Qualified immunity does not apply when there's no probable cause.
 
MountainDude said:
The Union will find a way to explain his actions and keep him on the force.
Click to expand...
I think the police unions have take some big hits over the last few decades for some cops intentionally doing some really DUMB or Illegal acts. They are still all about protecting their members, to a point, because it is killing them in the process if they stick up too much for these few bad apples. So if the cop was proven to have intentionally arrested these people knowing they were not drunk, he may be on the way out (or already is, I haven't read the stories). The municipalities they work for will not stand for it anymore because of how much it costs them and they don't have much, if any, discretionary funds these days.

If it was because of a bogus reading or the people were acting erratic where he could legitimately say he was going off his training, the union will back him completely.
 
"I don't consent to roadside sobriety tests."

Doesn't that trigger the FAA yanking your medical?
 
MyLeg said:
"I don't consent to roadside sobriety tests."

Doesn't that trigger the FAA yanking your medical?
Click to expand...
No. The FSTs are never more than a fishing expedition. You're not statutorily required to submit to them and the FAA doesn't care. Refusal of a mandated chemical test on the otherhand is a different story. Once you're arrested, most states compel you to submit a sample or face sanctions. At that point, the FAA assumes that you are dodging it because you know you have a sample high enough to indicate alcohol abuse/tolerance.
 
I’m also curious of the situation/behavior of the these people “falsely” arrested from the time of being pulled over up until the time of the arrest. I can easily see how someone (a police officer) would find it extremely suspicious if they pulled somebody over for speeding, failing to signal etc. and they immediately pulled the “I don’t talk to cops, I don’t answer questions, I plead the fifth”, or one of its variants so often suggested in social media. What would a normal person think? I for one (and I’m not a cop) would think “wooo, I just pulled you over to give you a written warning for going 8 over the speed limit…what the heck are you being like this for? Has this person just commited a major crime? Do they have any outstanding warrants? It’s not normal behavior”. It may potentially be arguably a sign that it is an unnatural response to common social interaction and of and in itself an indication of impairment?
I think the best way to not get into these situations is to not be driving impaired, and if you get pulled over don’t be a d&$@? I find it very hard to believe that there are rouge cops out there just pulling people over and arresting them on DUI’s at random
 
Last edited:
Back
Top