Typo?

Kritchlow

Kritchlow

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
7,714
Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
This was from the AOPA guy, Dr. Warren Silberman, in the latest AOPA email. I assume my bolding is a typo on their part....

"The other reporting requirement is Item 18(v) on your next FAA medical application. The application requires that the applicant must report any arrests, convictions, or administrative actions relating to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Please take note that having your lawyer get the offense reduced or thrown out is not an excuse not to report! If you were pulled over, requested to perform a field sobriety test, and/or asked to perform a breathalyzer, that is reportable in the affirmative on the application!"
 
Kritchlow said:
This was from the AOPA guy, Dr. Warren Silberman, in the latest AOPA email. I assume my bolding is a typo on their part....

"The other reporting requirement is Item 18(v) on your next FAA medical application. The application requires that the applicant must report any arrests, convictions, or administrative actions relating to operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Please take note that having your lawyer get the offense reduced or thrown out is not an excuse not to report! If you were pulled over, requested to perform a field sobriety test, and/or asked to perform a breathalyzer, that is reportable in the affirmative on the application!"
Click to expand...

I don't think so pal. There is no presumption of anything in a field test. You can be asked to blow on a PASD/PBT at any time without reason. You do not have to comply either.

If there is probable cause for the arrest, a sample of your breath or blood is required. In this case, unless they have a system like the Intoximters alcosensor portable, the custody plus movement is an arrest and reportable.

This guy, if he actually meant to print that, is completely full of **** and giving poor advice.
 
Last edited:
Unit74 said:
I don't think so pal. There is no presumption of anything in a field test. You can be asked to blow on a PASD/PBT at any time without reason. You do not have to comply either.

This guy, if he actually meant to print that, is completely full of **** and giving poor advice.
Click to expand...

So, you can get stopped for a taillight out, pass everything perfectly, be sent on your way..... And that's reportable?
 
I have gone through a random road block, been tested, passed with flying colors and sent on my way. I never reported that.
 
Kritchlow said:
So, you can get stopped for a taillight out, pass everything perfectly, be sent on your way..... And that's reportable?
Click to expand...

No, it's not a reportable action. There is no action to report.
 
Kritchlow said:
I have gone through a random road block, been tested, passed with flying colors and sent on my way. I never reported that.
Click to expand...


What are you gonna report to them? That you are a good driver? Like I said, he is way out of line in assuming any DUI investigation is reportable. If your not drunk, there is nothing there to report.

You gonna report that a doc stuck his finger in your ass to check your prostate and said you are good?
 
Unit74 said:
What are you gonna report to them? That you are a good driver? Like I said, he is way out of line in assuming any DUI investigation is reportable. If your not drunk, there is nothing there to report.

You gonna report that a doc stuck his finger in your ass to check your prostate and said you are good?
Click to expand...

Hey... It was you that jumped ugly with the original post. Obviously I'm saying there is nothing to report. You, initially, disagreed.
 
Wow! I hope that Dr. Silberman gives us a little more clarification on the next issue. When I read the email, I didn't even bother clicking on that link. But now, I've gone back and read the article twice, and I'm confused. My reading of item 18v on the application certainly would not lead me to believe that just being "pulled over" is reportable.
 
Kelvin said:
Just a heads up from a guy on the internet...

You might want to Google exactly who Dr. Silberman is before you dismiss him...:yes:


Yep...either way...it has my attention...
Click to expand...


Being asked to provide what he is calling a breathalyzer by a sworn officer would be the result of probable cause for arrest. Most states have an implied consent law on the books. Basically, if there is probable cause to arrest for the DUI, you must provide a blood or breath sample. Refusal results in automatic actions and in most states, are harsher than the DUI conviction itself.

The simple requests to perform a sobriety test are not reportable at all. Period. That is, assuming no arrest was made. And the PASD/PBT does not satisfy the sample requirement unless you are under 21. In that case, it's all you need unless the officer is going for the .08 or better conviction.
 
Kritchlow said:
Hey... It was you that jumped ugly with the original post. Obviously I'm saying there is nothing to report. You, initially, disagreed.
Click to expand...

Your having an Internet inflection problem. I never disagreed with anything nor am I getting ugly. I am an expert in this field, however.
 
Unit74 said:
19 years in the field and I also teach on the subject.
Click to expand...

I'm just a dumb old south Georgia farm boy. You're gonna have to spell it out for me. What exactly is "this field"? Are you a lawyer, aeromedical examiner, FAA representative, or .....?
 
wilkersk said:
I'm just a dumb old south Georgia farm boy. What exactly is "this field"? Are you a lawyer, aeromedical examiner, FAA representative, or .....?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to elaborate further. :nono:
 
Unit74 said:
Your having an Internet inflection problem. I never disagreed with anything nor am I getting ugly. I am an expert in this field, however.
Click to expand...

Unit74 said:
I don't think so pal. There is no presumption of anything in a field test. You can be asked to blow on a PASD/PBT at any time without reason. You do not have to comply either.

If there is probable cause for the arrest, a sample of your breath or blood is required. In this case, unless they have a system like the Intoximters alcosensor portable, the custody plus movement is an arrest and reportable.

This guy, if he actually meant to print that, is completely full of **** and giving poor advice.
Click to expand...

???...
Perhaps it was me that misread.

Btw... I'm not your pal.
 
It's not an arrest if they don't charge you. The definition of administrative action is well enumerated by the FAA and doesn't imply to a FST that doesn't result in an arrest. I can't tell you the number of times a cop has pulled me over on the least pretense at 2-3AM (that's when I used to head to work) to "sniff sniff" let me know I had a bulb out or the like. Once it resulted in FSTs (he said I was weaving, I was in fact, trying to find where the entrance to the shopping center was and I had moved to make a left turn only to find that what I thought was an entrance was a right-in-right-out. Had to get to the third one before I could find one I could turn left into.
 
flyingron said:
It's not an arrest if they don't charge you.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I just went through this last weekend.

I was driving home from my project Saturday about 6pm. I had driven over to check it out because I kept thinking that I failed to so something and had to check it out to satisfy my curiosity and allow me to sleep.

Anyway, I got pulled over by a local deputy as I'm driving home. He made some lame excuse as to why he pulled me over but soon it was obvious that they were out trying to raise money. I had a couple of beer cans rolling around in the back of the truck (it is a farm truck after all and is oft used for hours at a time without ever getting on a public road).

So he wants to do a field sobriety test.

I chuckle and politely tell him that it is not my obligation as a citizen to testify against myself and that if he thinks I'm in any way impaired then let's go down to the sheriff's dept.

That really pizzes him off and I get handcuffed and driven to the sheriff's office. Imagine, a cop getting mad because someone knows their rights.

An hour later I blow a .00.

They take me back to my truck and now he's really pizzed that I wasted almost 2 hours of his time.

I told him I was sorry for cutting into his money raising efforts but that I was in no hurry tonight and wanted to do my part to help other innocent citizens from that county's fundraising tactics. And I drove off.

He did tell me, sometime during the fiasco, that it would not be considered an arrest unless I blew over the limit. Rather I was merely being detained.

And I need to report that? I don't think so.

Oh, and when I got home my license plate light had miraculously re-illuminated even though he had told me it was burned out and that's why he was pulling me over.
 
In the Police Academy we were taught that it became an arrest at the moment an individual is not free to leave. It does not require charging at that point. A traffic stop is an arrest by that definition.

To differentiate, one step up is a "custody arrest". It is at that point that a charge should be articulated.
 
SkyHog said:
It's not a typo. It is just wrong.
Click to expand...

That would be my opinion, too, unless he clarifies it to specifically exclude random checkpoints.

During holidays, I would sometimes get pulled over multiple times during long trips to and from The City. They had roadblocks all over the route I usually took, which I use mainly because of the lack of tolls. I once hit four roadblocks in one night on a holiday. Each time I was questioned. Should those have to be reported? If so, then it's pure idiocy.

One time, after honestly answering that I'd been drinking earlier in the day but had stopped several hours before driving, I was asked if I minded performing a "field sobriety test." It was a bitterly cold night, so I asked if we could skip the roadside ballet and go right to the breathalyzer. To my surprise, the trooper was okay with that. I blew, he read, and he sent me on my way. It came up as "trace," which I guess means too low to quantify.

For whatever reason, I haven't been questioned in years. I still hit checkpoints, but they usually wave me through after nothing more than rolling down my window and exchanging holiday greetings, if even that much. I don't know why. The only thing I can think of is that after about 35 years of being eligible for them, I finally coughed up the coin to get "U.S. Veteran" license plates. Maybe they make a difference. Or maybe it's just that my beard is grayer. I really don't know.

Rich
 
No idea if it is true or not, but you folks are making an logic mistake. You are assuming that since it would be stupid, oppressive, and expensive policy that doesn't improve safety that it wouldn't be done. Pretty soon the choice will be have a driver's license or a valid medical but you won't be able to have both.
 
FastEddieB said:
In the Police Academy we were taught that it became an arrest at the moment an individual is not free to leave. It does not require charging at that point. A traffic stop is an arrest by that definition.

To differentiate, one step up is a "custody arrest". It is at that point that a charge should be articulated.
Click to expand...

This is correct. Custody plus movement is an arrest. Detention plus movement is an arrest. There us an exception where as if there is a safety issue, you can be moved to a safer place like off the freeway to a parking lot for testing.

But as a general rule, a traffic stop which leads to a trip somewher is an arrest be it jail, hospital or station. If you are not charged, it is a release. In Cali, penal code 849b calls for this.
 
FastEddieB said:
In the Police Academy we were taught that it became an arrest at the moment an individual is not free to leave. It does not require charging at that point. A traffic stop is an arrest by that definition.

To differentiate, one step up is a "custody arrest". It is at that point that a charge should be articulated.
Click to expand...


Darn you FastEddie! I have now spent all morning looking for the gif of "Laverne Hooks" saying "Don't Move Dirtbag"! That is gonna be stuck in my head for days now!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

hooks.jpg
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
In the Police Academy we were taught that it became an arrest at the moment an individual is not free to leave. It does not require charging at that point. A traffic stop is an arrest by that definition.
Click to expand...

I used to have one of those "states maps" titled "states I've been arrested in." With about 30 states filled in. I've always travelled with work and I've never adhered tightly to the speed limit. I always considered it a recommendation. :rofl:

A local attorney once corrected me and said I had only been detained...not arrested...if I'm getting a traffic ticket.

Maybe this is another thing that varies by state?
 
timwinters said:
Exactly, I just went through this last weekend.

I was driving home from my project Saturday about 6pm. I had driven over to check it out because I kept thinking that I failed to so something and had to check it out to satisfy my curiosity and allow me to sleep.

Anyway, I got pulled over by a local deputy as I'm driving home. He made some lame excuse as to why he pulled me over but soon it was obvious that they were out trying to raise money. I had a couple of beer cans rolling around in the back of the truck (it is a farm truck after all and is oft used for hours at a time without ever getting on a public road).

So he wants to do a field sobriety test.

I chuckle and politely tell him that it is not my obligation as a citizen to testify against myself and that if he thinks I'm in any way impaired then let's go down to the sheriff's dept.

That really pizzes him off and I get handcuffed and driven to the sheriff's office. Imagine, a cop getting mad because someone knows their rights.

An hour later I blow a .00.

They take me back to my truck and now he's really pizzed that I wasted almost 2 hours of his time.

I told him I was sorry for cutting into his money raising efforts but that I was in no hurry tonight and wanted to do my part to help other innocent citizens from that county's fundraising tactics. And I drove off.

He did tell me, sometime during the fiasco, that it would not be considered an arrest unless I blew over the limit. Rather I was merely being detained.

And I need to report that? I don't think so.

Oh, and when I got home my license plate light had miraculously re-illuminated even though he had told me it was burned out and that's why he was pulling me over.
Click to expand...
Reportable, maybe. Arrested, yes.
 
Lindberg said:
Arrested, yes.
Click to expand...

Again, is this maybe one of those issues that varies from one state to the next? I've heard it both ways from both LEOs and attorneys. And if it doesn't vary by state then we have a lot of confused LEOs and attorneys out there (not that that would surprise me).

What constitutes an arrest seems like it should be a very simple concept to define.
 
It would seem to me that if you were under arrest they would have to inform you of such, as well as mirandize you. That said, that's a layman's guess.
 
Kritchlow said:
It would seem to me that if you were under arrest they would have to inform you of such, as well as mirandize you. That said, that's a layman's guess.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement for Miranda if you are not questioned about the crime post arrest. It is triggered by custody + interrogation. Obtaining identifying information such as name address, phone etc is not a Miranda trigger.

And Miranda is not triggered up in detention generally. Once the intention to arrest has been made( PC for arrest), even if it was not conveyed to the suspect, you must be advised prior to any further investigatory inquiries.

You can be arrested, tried and convicted and not once been advised of Miranda.
 
As a road officer, there were many times we were advised NOT to Mirandize.

If a specialized unit was responding - Homicide, Robbery, etc. - they wanted to maximize the opportunity for the subject to make a "spontaneous utterance", and then make sure Miranda was given properly and perhaps recorded on tape.

If a subject blurts out "I only shot him because he was all up in my face!" from the back seat, that's admissible without Miranda, as long as it was not the result of an interrogation.

And it did happen, with some regularity.
 
timwinters said:
Again, is this maybe one of those issues that varies from one state to the next? I've heard it both ways from both LEOs and attorneys. And if it doesn't vary by state then we have a lot of confused LEOs and attorneys out there (not that that would surprise me).

What constitutes an arrest seems like it should be a very simple concept to define.
Click to expand...

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a100.htm

It's not necessarily a simple concept. But handcuffed, taken from the scene, and detained for an hour doesn't seem like a close call.
 
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