Touchy Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Unregistered

Guest
I have a couple of questions that I need an opinion on, and I'm not sure where to turn. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.

Background: I hold a commercial certificate with a current medical. Recently, I was cited in NY state (not my home state) for violation of NY 221.05, 'Unlawful Possession of Marijuana'. No operating under the influence was involved. This is a civil violation in NY, not a misdemeanor. I was not arrested, just ticketed. I pled guilty and paid the fine.

My questions concern how this will affect my next medical and certificate applications. On the medical application 8500-8, question 18W asks for "History of nontraffic convictions (misdemeanors or felonies)". Since this was not a misdemeanor, do I have to report this on my next medical? I don't think so, but I need another opinion.

Also, on the 8710-1, Application for Certificate and/or Rating, question 1U asks 'Have you ever been convicted for violation of any federal or state statutes relating to...marijuana...". No dodging this one, I believe that I'll have to report this here. If I do, how will this affect my ability to obtain additional certificates or ratings?

Thanks in advance and fly safe
 
Yeesh.

The ATP certificate has a requirement for "good moral character" (61.153(c), and this will need to pass into the flux of past time before you can get that. For the list of prohibited convictions for having a medical, it's 10 years before they will reconsider.

With a very adroit New York Attorney, you may not have to report this on your medical, if it's PLAINLY not a misdemeanor.

OTOH, however, as a commercial airman, WTF are you doing with weed? We can find that in hair for MONTHS after a single exposure.

"No officer that wasn't mine....it belongs to a friend...." Ugh.
 
bbchien said:
Yeesh.

The ATP certificate has a requirement for "good moral character" (61.153(c), and this will need to pass into the flux of past time before you can get that. For the list of prohibited convictions for having a medical, it's 10 years before they will reconsider.

With a very adroit New York Attorney, you may not have to report this on your medical, if it's PLAINLY not a misdemeanor.

OTOH, however, as a commercial airman, WTF are you doing with weed? We can find that in hair for MONTHS after a single exposure.

"No officer that wasn't mine....it belongs to a friend...." Ugh.
Click to expand...

Especially when there are perfectly good analogs that are legal and don't contra indicate on a DOT drug screen.
 
Unregistered said:
I have a couple of questions that I need an opinion on, and I'm not sure where to turn. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.
. . .

Also, on the 8710-1, Application for Certificate and/or Rating, question 1U asks 'Have you ever been convicted for violation of any federal or state statutes relating to...marijuana...". No dodging this one, I believe that I'll have to report this here. If I do, how will this affect my ability to obtain additional certificates or ratings?

Thanks in advance and fly safe
Click to expand...

Stop the presses, too much unknown. When did this happen? Did you sign and pay the ticket? If not yet signed and paid you may have a decent chance of this becoming a non-event. If you did sign and pay you may have the right to get it reopened and ultimately turn it into a non-event. You need advice from a competent NY lawyer. If it were here in PA I would send you to Adam Zucker who is my go to guy for getting these things resolved favorably. But your issue is NY and I don't have such a contact in NY.

Additional thoughts:

First, You'll need to hire an attorney to do the research, but it is quite possible that you are correct and NY state criminal law does not regard summary offenses as misdemeanors, but then again, it is possible they do. You need someone who knows the law to analyze the statute for you before you reach any conclusions. Conversely, it is also possible that somewhere in the statute there is a statement that conviction of a summary offense is not a criminal conviction. This may be tough to find and it may require a close judgment call. I'd look at the criminal statute to start and then look to the sentencing statute(s) to see how they treat summary offenses.

More likely is the possibility of getting the prosecutor to agree to a different charge that is not reportable to the FAA, or if it is reportable won't trigger an automatic disqualification. Think about a disorderly conduct charge, especially if this can also be a summary offense under NY law.

Second, NY State has as a diversionary or rehabilitation statute that permits the prosecutor to defer prosecution and, if you successfully complete whatever rehabilitative program you're given, dismisses the charges without even the need to enter a plea. No charges = no conviction. While the Form 8500-8 asks about arrests for traffic offenses, it asks only about convictions for other offenses. Same with the 8710, which in fact uses the phrase final conviction which implies to us lawyers that if the conviction is on appeal it need not be reported as it is not final.

Note, it is quite possible that the only offenders eligible for the diversionary program are those who are facing misdemeanor or higher charges. If this is the case, then your summary offense charge may need to be refiled as a misdemeanor charge so you are eligible for the rehabilitation program. I know it is counter intuitive to make the charges more substantial, but here your concern is not the cost of your defense, but the defense of your license.

Finally, Dr. Bruce makes an oft overlooked point about the ATP and "good moral character" I think this deserves a little closer look without jumping to any conclusions. These are often tough calls. Example - under immigration law, good moral character is a fairly nebulous thing. Certainly there are clear cases of bad moral character, such as dealing in illegal durgs, murder, etc. On the other hand there are close cases as well - is a single DUI bad moral character? (No in Newark, NJ. Sometimes yes in Philadelphia) How about a second one? (Now Newark might not find good moral character) How about second one where your license was suspended for the first one? (This one can get you deported) Also, there is an exception in immigration law for possession of a small amount of pot for personal use (thank John Lennon if you run into him in the after life). It sounds to me that the charge may not trigger good moral character issues, depending on the facts and circumstances.

So before I'd go kissing my pilot's license good bye I'd get the advice of experienced criminal counsel familiar with the place the alleged offense occurred. No conviction equals no disclosure equals many years of safe flying.

Contact me directly if you have questions. alf@arnoldfeldman.com
 
Henning said:
Especially when there are perfectly good analogs that are legal and don't contra indicate on a DOT drug screen.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
Have you been popped on one? Know anyone who has been? Cite any evidence?
Click to expand...
Nope- I do like a clear mind; I have no wish to be in my own clinical trials either. Nope to the second question. For the third question-

If they don't have an ELISA screen for these compounds yet, it isn't that hard to put one together anymore. They are detectable by either LC-MS or GC-MS, which any drug testing lab has access to. It wouldn't surprise me if the acetate group added to O-acetyl-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol comes back off during metabolism causing the molecule to revert to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is then detected using current standard techniques for cannabis.

As for the legal status...I'm no lawyer...but I think that most states' DUI laws include the influence of drugs as well as alcohol, which then affects pilot certification.

Many states ban these compounds under the blanket of "designer drugs" or "controlled substance analog" laws.
http://lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HB265/bill.doc

http://www.tennessean.com/article/2...hetic-drugs-are-illegal-in-TN-starting-July-1

http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/circular/eok204.htm
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
OTOH, however, as a commercial airman, WTF are you doing with weed?
Click to expand...

+1
There is no valid reason to be on weed, those medical reasons are BS and the cancer risk of it is significantly higher than cigarettes. Not to mention the possible effect it could have if you are high while flying.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
+1
There is no valid reason to be on weed, those medical reasons are BS and the cancer risk of it is significantly higher than cigarettes. Not to mention the possible effect it could have if you are high while flying.
Click to expand...

Obviously no one should fly or operate any vehicle while intoxicated by any substance, but higher cancer risk from weed than cigarettes? Just not true.
 
BeRad said:
Obviously no one should fly or operate any vehicle while intoxicated by any substance, but higher cancer risk from weed than cigarettes? Just not true.
Click to expand...

Oh? There is plenty more where that came from, Marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettes in the way of lung cancer and emphysema.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm
"Can marijuana cause cancer?
Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana may cause cancer if used for a number of years."

http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/31/2/280
"Cannabis smoking may have a greater potential than tobacco smoking to cause lung cancer 1–4. Cannabis smoke is qualitatively similar to tobacco smoke, although it contains up to twice the concentration of the carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons"
 
The difference being that most users of marijuana do not consume anywhere NEAR the amount that an average smoker consumes cigarettes. (There are exceptions).
 
Point really is, in most states pot is illegal (with a very few exceptions). Period, end of story. The degree of crime you are committing by possessing it varies by state and since the FAA makes a point to ask specifically about it. Guess they think it is a bad thing also.
 
jesse said:
The difference being that most users of marijuana do not consume anywhere NEAR the amount that an average smoker consumes cigarettes. (There are exceptions).
Click to expand...

Beat me to it.

When I was smoking (cigarettes that is), I was a 2 pack a day man.

Wow, I would have been one stoned muther had I ever regularly smoked 1/10 that much weed. I'm not saying I ever smoked weed mind you. I was a product of the 60's and 70's...trust me...there wasn't any weed roaming around in those days.
:rolleyes2:
 
By the way, last time I checked, oral sex was still illegal in almost half of these fine United States.

I wonder which has caused more car crashes...oral sex?...weed?

I'd bet it's a close race! ;)

I wonder which has caused more disease...oral sex?...weed?

I'd bet it’s oral sex, hands down!

Yes, I know, it's a silly comparison but both laws are equally antiquated IMO.
 
I've read enough accident reports over the years to believe that just about every drug known to man (legal and otherwise) has turned up at the scene of an accident. :sad:
The OP stated the issue was possession of a small amount, not operating under the influence. Assuming that (s)he's flying under the influence of weed is analogous to assuming that anyone with booze at home is drunk in the cockpit. It takes personal responsibility to separate these activities.
Cheers! :cheerswine:
 
This was a recent citation?

All legalities aside, I don't think you should be a commercial pilot if you're doing drugs. And especially not an ATP. I'd say the same about someone who was convicted of alcohol-related offenses, too. You're usually only caught if you're acting recklessly to begin with. If it was 10 years ago, then fine, people change. But not if it's recent.

So, you'll probably be best off if you follow Bruce's advice. But maybe you shouldn't need to ask this question to begin with since the responsible thing to do would be to stop doing drugs and wait a year before flying again.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
This was a recent citation?

All legalities aside, I don't think you should be a commercial pilot if you're doing drugs. And especially not an ATP. I'd say the same about someone who was convicted of alcohol-related offenses, too. You're usually only caught if you're acting recklessly to begin with. If it was 10 years ago, then fine, people change. But not if it's recent.

So, you'll probably be best off if you follow Bruce's advice. But maybe you shouldn't need to ask this question to begin with since the responsible thing to do would be to stop doing drugs and wait a year before flying again.

-Felix
Click to expand...
definitely +1
 
Pot may have a greater effect on memory and attention than alcohol and it certainly has a longer half life. I would not and will not trust my life with anyone who uses pot. It can only detract from and degrade any physically and intellectually demanding task that requires judgment, coordination, and risk management. In my view, you can get real high or virtual high. I prefer the real thing. It's SO much cooler and WAY more fun, I'd imagine.
 
Look I really don't have a huge problem with people who drink alcohol or smoke pot. I'm an "individual liberty" type of guy. But the line is drawn when other people are affected.

When you become an ATP you have an enormous responsibility to your passengers. They are trusting you to be at the top of your game when you are behind the yoke.

Make a choice: smoking pot or flying passengers. They don't mix.
 
Everybody assumes the OP is a user, but it's also possible to get busted for possession and still be innocent. Say his teenager left his jacket in the jar with a joint in the pocket, and the dogs found it during a traffic stop. "Gee officer, it isn't MY jacket." Yeah that will fly.

Why woudn't you fight it? I would, but if it truly is an infraction and not a misdemeanor (and you had no other professional or licensing issues at stake) the payback on the legal and court fees required to win the case probably isn't worth it.

I did not read that the OP was applying for an ATP certificate.
 
bbchien said:
Yeesh.

The ATP certificate has a requirement for "good moral character" (61.153(c), and this will need to pass into the flux of past time before you can get that. For the list of prohibited convictions for having a medical, it's 10 years before they will reconsider.

With a very adroit New York Attorney, you may not have to report this on your medical, if it's PLAINLY not a misdemeanor.

OTOH, however, as a commercial airman, WTF are you doing with weed? We can find that in hair for MONTHS after a single exposure.

" Ugh.
Click to expand...

Bruce , where did the OP say he was an ATP ? Second , when did the FAA start requiring AME's to take hair samples ? Id say you are a bit off base .
 
The issue here is not what NY State thinks, but what the FAA Chief Counsel thinks about this legal action. I suggest that the OP retain a competent aviation attorney who can approach the FAA Regional Counsel with this question, and obtain the FAA's position on the matter without disclosing your identity. Only with that information can you rationally explore your legal options. Anything else is pure guesswork. I would also say that having that attorney be one licensed in NY is a good idea, since it is not likely that an out-of-state attorney will fully understand the nuances of NY State law. And since, depending on the circumstances and what other administrative actions NY State may take, there may be a 60-day clock already ticking, the OP would be well-advised not to dally about.
 
Unregistered said:
Bruce , where did the OP say he was an ATP ?
Click to expand...
S/he didn't, but it's not an unreasonable assumption to think a Commercial Pilot might want to be an ATP some day, and this is not the sort of thing the FAA wants to see on the record of an applicant for an ATP certificate.
 
Ron Levy said:
The issue here is not what NY State thinks, but what the FAA Chief Counsel thinks about this legal action. I suggest that the OP retain a competent aviation attorney who can approach the FAA Regional Counsel with this question, and obtain the FAA's position on the matter without disclosing your identity. Only with that information can you rationally explore your legal options. Anything else is pure guesswork. I would also say that having that attorney be one licensed in NY is a good idea, since it is not likely that an out-of-state attorney will fully understand the nuances of NY State law. And since, depending on the circumstances and what other administrative actions NY State may take, there may be a 60-day clock already ticking, the OP would be well-advised not to dally about.
Click to expand...

Actually it probably does mater what NY thinks . If Arnold is correct and the OP can change his/her plea , Or plead to a lesser charge , There would not be anything to report . It is not pure guesswork to approach this . There are substantial differences in Marijuana laws from state to state .
 
Unregistered said:
Actually it probably does mater what NY thinks . If Arnold is correct and the OP can change his/her plea , Or plead to a lesser charge , There would not be anything to report . It is not pure guesswork to approach this . There are substantial differences in Marijuana laws from state to state .
Click to expand...
I'll buy the first sentence, but that's about it. The only thing that matters here is what the FAA thinks, and you won't find that out without giving details, and you don't want to do that other than anonymously through an attorney. Fail to report something the FAA thinks needs reporting, and if they ever find out, you're dead meat. Likewise, if you report something you didn't have to report, they can still use it against you -- again, dead meat. For those reasons, it is highly inadvisable to guess and roll the dice on stuff like this. Get a lawyer!
 
Ron Levy said:
I'll buy the first sentence, but that's about it. The only thing that matters here is what the FAA thinks, and you won't find that out without giving details, and you don't want to do that other than anonymously through an attorney. Fail to report something the FAA thinks needs reporting, and if they ever find out, you're dead meat. Likewise, if you report something you didn't have to report, they can still use it against you -- again, dead meat. For those reasons, it is highly inadvisable to guess and roll the dice on stuff like this. Get a lawyer!
Click to expand...

Actually Ron that persons first sentence does say it all . If he/she can get out of a drug conviction , end of story . The FAA can't make stuff up as they go along and there is no rule against not reporting something that does not need reporting . As to your " Dead Meat " analogy , we all know the FAA seems to exist in an alternate reality , but they would still have to prove Intentional Falsification . ( Laughing ) Are you paranoid ?
 
Unregistered said:
Actually Ron that persons first sentence does say it all . If he/she can get out of a drug conviction , end of story .
Click to expand...
Guess you haven't read the latest version of the medical application. An arrest is sufficient to trigger a report there if you were driving at the time. And once that is reported, the ATP issues rear their ugly heads. IOW, he needs competent legal advice, not what you or I can offer here. And note that 61.15(a) doesn't say anything about criminal or civil statutes, just statutes. If he was found to have violated a "statute" relating to the possession of marijuana, the FAA is almost certainly not going to accept quibbling over whether NY State calls it a "conviction" or not.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Guess you haven't read the latest version of the medical application. An arrest is sufficient to trigger a report there if you were driving at the time. And once that is reported, the ATP issues rear their ugly heads. IOW, he needs competent legal advice, not what you or I can offer here. And note that 61.15(a) doesn't say anything about criminal or civil statutes, just statutes. If he was found to have violated a "statute" relating to the possession of marijuana, the FAA is almost certainly not going to accept quibbling over whether NY State calls it a "conviction" or not.
Click to expand...

Blah Blah Blah . You are putting the cart ahead of the horse . It is absurd to claim to know exactly how the FAA would interpret this or what they would or would not accept . I motion for a dismissal on the grounds that you are just talking to hear yourself talk .
 
Unregistered said:
Blah Blah Blah . You are putting the cart ahead of the horse . It is absurd to claim to know exactly how the FAA would interpret this or what they would or would not accept . I motion for a dismissal on the grounds that you are just talking to hear yourself talk .
Click to expand...
Dismissal granted on the grounds that you're an idiot who doesn't recognize good advice because you don't like the manner in which it was presented.
 
Ron Levy said:
Guess you haven't read the latest version of the medical application. An arrest is sufficient to trigger a report there if you were driving at the time. And once that is reported, the ATP issues rear their ugly heads. IOW, he needs competent legal advice, not what you or I can offer here. And note that 61.15(a) doesn't say anything about criminal or civil statutes, just statutes. If he was found to have violated a "statute" relating to the possession of marijuana, the FAA is almost certainly not going to accept quibbling over whether NY State calls it a "conviction" or not.
Click to expand...

Ron , you are the one who needs to do some reading . It seems like you are jumping to conclusions . Go back and read the first few posts and when you have time , got to the FAA website and there is some material that addresses this issue . Good luck .
 
TMetzinger said:
Dismissal granted on the grounds that you're an idiot who doesn't recognize good advice because you don't like the manner in which it was presented.
Click to expand...

Objection , Your Honor ! Leading the witness . Actually , and I don,t know who is who exactly , but I think the person you called an idiot recommended that the OP resolve the issue in its entirety with the State of NY ant THEN ( If necessary ) address the mater with the FAA . This is actually not bad advise . Do you refer to people as idiots to their faces or are you just a jerk online ?
 
Unregistered said:
I motion for a dismissal on the grounds that you are just talking to hear yourself talk .
Click to expand...
For someone who doesn't even know the correct terminology, you're chock-full of legal advice. The point you're missing is that if you don't know the FAA ramifications of the various possible outcomes with the NY legal sitation, you stand a very good chance of agreeing to something with NY that will hang you with the FAA.
 
Unregistered said:
Objection , Your Honor ! Leading the witness . Actually , and I don,t know who is who exactly , but I think the person you called an idiot recommended that the OP resolve the issue in its entirety with the State of NY ant THEN ( If necessary ) address the mater with the FAA . This is actually not bad advise . Do you refer to people as idiots to their faces or are you just a jerk online ?
Click to expand...

Oh - I stab people in the front in real life too.

Of course you want to get the issue fixed with the state, but if you're not careful, the way the problem gets "solved" with the state could end up hurting with the FAA.

Like a speeding ticket that turns into reckless driving (even though the ticket didn't charge reckless driving), there are times when you need a lawyer that is expert in dealing with the authorities involved - in this case the FAA.

This is one of those times. Anyone who's been in aviation for a while realizes that there are a LOT of different FAA enforcement folk and a wide variety of opinions among them on what is/isn't a violation or airworthy or ... And since that opinion starts a chain of events that can be long and expensive to wrangle (even, heck, ESPECIALLY when you're right) it is wise to get an expert involved in negotiating a deal while maintaining your anonymity.
 
Last edited:
Folks, either knock off the personal attacks or this thread will be closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top