Wagstaff late-night "runway incident" at KOSH?

Clark1961 said:
Exactly what do you find disappointing?
Click to expand...

Who refuses to take a sobriety test unless they're drinking and driving?

Patty Wagstaff is a waste of life to me now, a disgrace to every pilot in this country. I hope that she loses not only her driver's license, but her priviledge to fly airplanes as well.
 
SkyHog said:
Who refuses to take a sobriety test unless they're drinking and driving?
Click to expand...
Someone who feels that they are being pushed around by someone who really has no authority or reason to be there. Not saying that this is why she declined, but she deserves the benefit of the doubt.
SkyHog said:
Patty Wagstaff is a waste of life to me now, a disgrace to every pilot in this country. I hope that she loses not only her driver's license, but her priviledge to fly airplanes as well.
Click to expand...
Way harsh without knowing what happened!:eek:
 
jmaynard said:
Someone who takes the advice of their attorney; lawyers always tell people to refuse the test. Something about the Fifth Amendment.
Click to expand...

gprellwitz said:
Someone who feels that they are being pushed around by someone who really has no authority or reason to be there. Not saying that this is why she declined, but she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Way harsh without knowing what happened!:eek:
Click to expand...

Implied consent laws would lead me to believe that regardless of the reason, if you're driving, and a police officer asks you, you should take the sobriety test.

Driving's not a right either, and when she got her DL, she consented to sobriety tests when asked.
 
SkyHog said:
Who refuses to take a sobriety test unless they're drinking and driving?

Patty Wagstaff is a waste of life to me now, a disgrace to every pilot in this country. I hope that she loses not only her driver's license, but her priviledge to fly airplanes as well.
Click to expand...

So much for innocent until proven guilty. Sorry you feel so free as to judge someone without all the facts.

I know that it is not uncommon to make false accusations. I also know that law enforcement personnel are not above provoking people.

I'll wait for the facts to be presented before making an assessment.

I suspect you could learn to be just a little bit more fair...
 
SkyHog said:
Implied consent laws would lead me to believe that regardless of the reason, if you're driving, and a police officer asks you, you should take the sobriety test.

Driving's not a right either, and when she got her DL, she consented to sobriety tests when asked.
Click to expand...
Hey, I don't even know that she WAS driving. She might have been walking across the runway, got into a confrontation with security, they called the cops, the sheriff decided to have her do a breathalyzer, and she refused. Not saying that this is what happened, but it's another example of a plausible situation where she may have refused. As I said, let's get the facts before damning her!
 
gprellwitz said:
Hey, I don't even know that she WAS driving. She might have been walking across the runway, got into a confrontation with security, they called the cops, the sheriff decided to have her do a breathalyzer, and she refused. Not saying that this is what happened, but it's another example of a plausible situation where she may have refused. As I said, let's get the facts before damning her!
Click to expand...

If that is what happened, I'll gladly take back my comments. Can't imagine someone being charged with refusing to take the test if they were walking though...
 
Clark1961 said:
I'll wait for the facts to be presented before making an assessment.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Let's see what pans out in the fact. IF she does turn out to be guilty of a DUI, then just punishment is deserved as well as certificate action by the FAA. If not, send her on her merry way.
 
Clark1961 said:
I know that it is not uncommon to make false accusations. I also know that law enforcement personnel are not above provoking people.
Click to expand...

Provoking people to drink?

I agree we should wait, and I'll rely on someone other than Jim Campbell with his known antipathy to authority and his own scrapes with the law to provide that information.

For now she is up the creek, and I agree with Nick that is sad.
 
SkyHog said:
If that is what happened, I'll gladly take back my comments. Can't imagine someone being charged with refusing to take the test if they were walking though...
Click to expand...

Ummm, somebody's signature on this board is something about not being able to unring a bell. Does that have any meaning?

Quite frankly I've seen police go bonkers if you point out simple facts to them. Once their "authority" has been challenged they go into the "I'm in charge" here mode and accusations follow. Unfortunately there is frequently no one around to rein them in and the accusations get promoted to charges. I've lived through it and it isn't much fun.

I suspect the DA is going to have a difficult case and furthermore I predict the charges will be dropped. There will be no appology offered or even a reasonable explanation. Patty's reputation will be damaged and life will go on. Just another "injustice" of our "justice" system.
 
Clark1961 said:
Quite frankly I've seen police go bonkers if you point out simple facts to them. Once their "authority" has been challenged they go into the "I'm in charge" here mode and accusations follow. Unfortunately there is frequently no one around to rein them in and the accusations get promoted to charges. I've lived through it and it isn't much fun.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I've seen people who aren't used to law enforcement and who are doing something blatantly illegal go bonkers over perceived "aggressiveness" and "abuse of authority" when contacted by the police because they (lucky them) aren't used to being afraid. Great country we live in that way :cheerswine: Doesn't make them right or the police wrong.

I suspect the DA is going to have a difficult case and furthermore I predict the charges will be dropped.
Click to expand...
I suspect they have a slam dunk case, which is why Ms. Wagstaff is saying what she is saying in public, and I expect a plea bargain relatively soon.
 
SkyHog said:
Which right would that be?
Click to expand...

Not you too.

How about protection against unreasonable searches? Hmmm?
There is always the issue of probable cause...

Don't get to bound up in your own assumptions of guilt until proven innocent. Okay?
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
You do realize you're arguing with a cop? One of several current and former LEOs.
Click to expand...

What's your point? Just because he is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean his opinion is correct.
 
Clark1961 said:
There's implied consent and there's reasonable suspicion. You do understand that there are more issues here than your simple claim don't you?
Click to expand...


That depends. If she was driving, then no. Not a single issue exists beyond that. If a police officer asks for a sobriety test at any time when you are stopped for something, you must comply.

There's no reasonable suspision necessary, the driver has already consented to the test.
 
Clark1961 said:
What's your point? Just because he is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean his opinion is correct.
Click to expand...
Well, think back to his comment on a difference and level of experience. I tend to agree.
 
SkyHog said:
If that is what happened, I'll gladly take back my comments. Can't imagine someone being charged with refusing to take the test if they were walking though...
Click to expand...

You obviously weren't in OSH. Their security was BAD this year - Bad as in, thought they were gods. They ranked right down there with the parking folks in the North 40. I only had to pull the mixture twice to keep them from running into my prop. :mad: :rolleyes:

Nick, if she was drivin' drunk on the road, I'll agree with ya. But, with the awful security this year, I think this could easily have been a situation where some people were screwing around, a security guy tried to get them to stop, they blew him off, he got mad, she said "do you know who I am" and it all went downhill from there.

I'll be interested to see what happens with this...
 
Clark1961 said:
What's your point? Just because he is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean his opinion is correct.
Click to expand...

That is right. However, unlike you I feel I have a pretty good handle on what reasonable suspicion and probable cause actually means, and when they actually apply.

Let's review. A few posts back you mentioned LE provoking people, presumably in the context that perhaps Patty Wagstaff could have somehow been provoked into getting herself into a DUI and violation of implied consent charges. As far as I know, the only way to do that is to drink a decent amount of alcohol or be under the influence of drugs, take control of a vehicle and then when requested to perform sobriety tasks or submit to a chemical test refuse to do so. Certainly one could potentially be provoked into refusing the test, somehow, but as I said before the police really don't want you to refuse, because although you have then committed a misdemeanor (in most states) it is a much less serious charge than DUI/OWI, and they no longer have a quantitative piece of evidence that they can use against you in court.

Nick is wrong on one point, in all states that I am aware of law enforcement officers must have at least reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence and driving before they can request a chemical test in a way that kicks in the implied consent statutes. But reasonable suspicion is a very low standard to meet.

Perhaps you are arguing about the way it should be, instead of the way it is. If so we will have to agree to disagree. Either way I'm done here, and I'm done with you. I find it extremely unlikely that Patty Wagstaff wandered innocently into a situation that resulted in her being charged with not one but two misdemeanors. It may well be that she will be found innocent, or nolo, of the charges, if so I am happy for her. Perhaps she will be found innocent of the DUI, and guilty of violating the implied consent law (many are.) Either way perhaps she will just mix the margaritas next time, or stay in camp. Whatever. At least we aren't reading about her or someone else's tragic demise.
 
I suspect they have a slam dunk case, which is why Ms. Wagstaff is saying what she is saying in public, and I expect a plea bargain relatively soon.[/quote]

I agree 100%. I don't know Patty but I'm sure she wishes that night never happened. We should all take something away from this....if you love to fly, don't put yourself in this situation. By the way I talking about a couple social drinks here...not stumble to your car and kill someone drunk. If I have one drink..I will not drive for at least 1-2 hours. If I have 2 drinks...not driving till morning. It is conservative for a bigger guy but I love to fly.
 
gprellwitz said:
Hey, I don't even know that she WAS driving. She might have been walking across the runway, got into a confrontation with security, they called the cops, the sheriff decided to have her do a breathalyzer, and she refused. Not saying that this is what happened, but it's another example of a plausible situation where she may have refused. As I said, let's get the facts before damning her!
Click to expand...

I'm with you, Grant. Something doesn't jive with this whole story and the seemingly odd charge. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.
 
This thread is closed for review by the Management Council.
 
Thread being reopened.

Posts which violated RoC, as well as posts which quoted the violation, have been deleted.

Please resume discussion in keeping with the Rules of Conduct.
 
I'm with Kent on the security at OSH this year. They were overbearing, and did not contribute to a general sense of fun amongst the show. We had one run-in with them that was unpleasant while I was there.

I HAVE met Patty, and while I certainly can't claim to know her, she's a very nice woman in the encounters I've had. Regardless of that, there is a lot of speculation going on in this thread that is reminiscent of guilty until proven innocent. Regardless of who is being accused and what the accusation is, we owe it to that person as a general human courtesy (not to mention the rights of that person under our Constitution) to maintain innocent until proven guilty.

And, for the record, I would NOT consent to:

- Alcohol test
- Drug test
- Searching my car
- Searching my house

If some cop asked me for it. And I have nothing to hide.

I would bet much higher on a "wrong place, wrong time" in this instance, but none of us have the required information to figure this out. If it happened to any of us instead of a known figure, I would think we'd be supportive of our fellow pilot and assume innocent until proven guilty, at least that's what I would suspect most of you would do for me. Why then do some of us choose to assume the opposite for someone who is our fellow pilot, and can out fly anyone on this board, when we do not have nearly enough info to concretely state otherwise?
 
I think we should take bets on whether EAA goes with the Oshkosh residents or one of, if not THE top volunteer performers at AirVenture in decades. (OK, Sean Tucker took #1 later.)

I have my opinion which they'll choose.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And, for the record, I would NOT consent to:

- Alcohol test
- Drug test
- Searching my car
- Searching my house

If some cop asked me for it. And I have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

Ted,

Some states (such as Pennsylvania) have "Implied consent" laws.

If you choose to refuse a sobriety test, you can be treated as if you failed it (car impounded, lose your license, etc)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Why then do some of us choose to assume the opposite for someone who is our fellow pilot, and can out fly anyone on this board, when we do not have nearly enough info to concretely state otherwise?
Click to expand...

Because, Ted, in many of our collective experience, where there is smoke there is fire. Her status as a pilot, and how good of one she is, has nothing to do with it, except perhaps that the FAA holds us to a higher standard when it it comes to alcohol and our medical certificates of course. Her status as a public figure and a representative of the flying public has everything to do with the situation. These scenarios that make security and police out to be the bad guys and Ms. Wagstaff as the innocent victim of overzealous enforcement just don't compute. She wasn't charged with disorderly conduct, or failure to follow police orders, or trespassing...

One can make your same argument about those of you who are willing to write this up to police or security misconduct with no evidence of such. Certainly Ms. Wagstaff's own words as quoted in the aviation media make no such accusation. It is Jim Campbell at ANN who is mumbling about such things. And we know how much he likes airshow security :goofy:
 
Last edited:
Personally, I just don't see enough information there to make any kind of a judgment one way or the other... If she was driving a car, oh yeah, then throw the book at her. Driving a golf cart? Ehhh... C'mon. But regardless, we don't know what happened, and any absolute pronouncements are premature at best.
 
dmccormack said:
Ted,

Some states (such as Pennsylvania) have "Implied consent" laws.

If you choose to refuse a sobriety test, you can be treated as if you failed it (car impounded, lose your license, etc)
Click to expand...

Ya, and what I like most is this one http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4d-1.html which I don't even have to have any intent to drive the car as long as I have the ignition key (well it's the same key I use to get in the car) and am sitting in the drivers seat I can be charged with OUI....

*** If you get more tipsy then planned, Don't get in your car to sleep it off ***

And I was told (will have to look it up, don't have time now) that if you are in the passenger seat drunk with a "drunk driver" (that you may have thought was sober) you can be charged because it's assumened that you would have drove if the other person didn't.

What a great system we have and I'm sure the public is SO much safer... I believe that as much as the TSA is keeping us safe.

Missa
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Personally, I just don't see enough information there to make any kind of a judgment one way or the other... If she was driving a car, oh yeah, then throw the book at her. Driving a golf cart? Ehhh... C'mon. But regardless, we don't know what happened, and any absolute pronouncements are premature at best.
Click to expand...

How about just sitting on the golf cart with the keys in it? That's all that's required for the OUI.
 
jmaynard said:
Someone who takes the advice of their attorney; lawyers always tell people to refuse the test. Something about the Fifth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Actually Jay that's not the case everywhere. In PA for example if one refuses to take the BAC test ( blood, breath, urine) they are subject to a one year suspension by the DOT OUTSIDE of any criminal penalty or suspension.

In addition Refusal can be evidence against you here and can increase the severity of a potential violation.
 
vontresc said:
IIRC WI has an implied consent law. Unfortunately it has been so long since I took any driver's course I can't remember the details.

Google pulled up this on the WI laws.
http://www.1800duilaws.com/states/wi.asp
Click to expand...

343.305 Tests for intoxication; administrative suspension and court-ordered revocation.
343.305(1)
(1) Definitions. In this section:


343.305(1)(b)
(b) "Drive" means the exercise of physical control over the speed and direction of a motor vehicle while it is in motion.


343.305(1)(c)
(c) "Operate" means the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion.


343.305(2)
(2) Implied consent. Any person who is on duty time with respect to a commercial motor vehicle or drives or operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state, or in those areas enumerated in s. 346.61, is deemed to have given consent to one or more tests of his or her breath, blood or urine, for the purpose of determining the presence or quantity in his or her blood or breath, of alcohol, controlled substances, controlled substance analogs or other drugs, or any combination of alcohol, controlled substances, controlled substance analogs and other drugs, when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer under sub. (3) (a) or (am) or when required to do so under sub. (3) (ar) or (b). Any such tests shall be administered upon the request of a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement agency by which the officer is employed shall be prepared to administer, either at its agency or any other agency or facility, 2 of the 3 tests under sub. (3) (a), (am), or (ar), and may designate which of the tests shall be administered first.


343.305(3)
(3) Requested or required.

343.305(3)(a)
(a) Upon arrest of a person for violation of s. 346.63 (1), (2m) or (5) or a local ordinance in conformity therewith, or for a violation of s. 346.63 (2) or (6) or 940.25, or s. 940.09 where the offense involved the use of a vehicle, or upon arrest subsequent to a refusal under par. (ar), a law enforcement officer may request the person to provide one or more samples of his or her breath, blood or urine for the purpose specified under sub. (2). Compliance with a request for one type of sample does not bar a subsequent request for a different type of sample.


343.305(3)(am)
(am) Prior to arrest, a law enforcement officer may request the person to provide one or more samples of his or her breath, blood or urine for the purpose specified under sub. (2) whenever a law enforcement officer detects any presence of alcohol, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or other drug, or a combination thereof, on a person driving or operating or on duty time with respect to a commercial motor vehicle or has reason to believe the person is violating or has violated s. 346.63 (7). Compliance with a request for one type of sample does not bar a subsequent request for a different type of sample. For the purposes of this paragraph, "law enforcement officer" includes inspectors in the performance of duties under s. 110.07 (3).


343.305(3)(ar)
(ar) If a person is the operator of a vehicle that is involved in an accident that causes the death of or great bodily harm to any person, and a law enforcement officer detects any presence of alcohol, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or other drug, or a combination thereof, the law enforcement officer may request the operator to provide one or more samples of his or her breath, blood, or urine for the purpose specified under sub. (2). Compliance with a request for one type of sample does not bar a subsequent request for a different type of sample. A person who is unconscious or otherwise not capable of withdrawing consent is presumed not to have withdrawn consent under this paragraph and one or more samples specified in par. (a) or (am) may be administered to the person. If a person refuses to take a test under this paragraph, he or she may be arrested under par. (a).


343.305(3)(b)
(b) A person who is unconscious or otherwise not capable of withdrawing consent is presumed not to have withdrawn consent under this subsection, and if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the person has violated s. 346.63 (1), (2m) or (5) or a local ordinance in conformity therewith, or s. 346.63 (2) or (6) or 940.25, or s. 940.09 where the offense involved the use of a vehicle, or detects any presence of alcohol, controlled substance, controlled substance analog or other drug, or a combination thereof, on a person driving or operating or on duty time with respect to a commercial motor vehicle or has reason to believe the person has violated s. 346.63 (7), one or more samples specified in par. (a) or (am) may be administered to the person.


343.305(3)(c)
(c) This section does not limit the right of a law enforcement officer to obtain evidence by any other lawful means.


343.305(4)
(4) Information. At the time that a chemical test specimen is requested under sub. (3) (a), (am), or (ar), the law enforcement officer shall read the following to the person from whom the test specimen is requested:
"You have either been arrested for an offense that involves driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, or you are suspected of driving or being on duty time with respect to a commercial motor vehicle after consuming an intoxicating beverage.
This law enforcement agency now wants to test one or more samples of your breath, blood or urine to determine the concentration of alcohol or drugs in your system. If any test shows more alcohol in your system than the law permits while driving, your operating privilege will be suspended. If you refuse to take any test that this agency requests, your operating privilege will be revoked and you will be subject to other penalties. The test results or the fact that you refused testing can be used against you in court.
If you take all the requested tests, you may choose to take further tests. You may take the alternative test that this law enforcement agency provides free of charge. You also may have a test conducted by a qualified person of your choice at your expense. You, however, will have to make your own arrangements for that test.
If you have a commercial driver license or were operating a commercial motor vehicle, other consequences may result from positive test results or from refusing testing, such as being placed out of service or disqualified."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And, for the record, I would NOT consent to:

- Alcohol test
- Drug test
- Searching my car
- Searching my house

If some cop asked me for it. And I have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...
Indeed. One of the things I took away from my pistol carry permit class is that the cops are never your friend when they think they're investigating a crime. They can and do lie to you with impunity. The only thing that's prudent to say to an officer who's asking you questions in relation to a crime he thinks you've committed is "I need to speak to my attorney and I do not consent to any search."

And no, I don't hate cops. I spent 17 years in volunteer EMS, working hand in hand with the police. Most cops are upstanding folks who are trying to do a tough job that needs doing. However, their job is to get evidence that can be used to convict you, not to get the truth of the matter. There's a crucial difference there.
 
jmaynard said:
Indeed. One of the things I took away from my pistol carry permit class is that the cops are never your friend when they think they're investigating a crime. They can and do lie to you with impunity. The only thing that's prudent to say to an officer who's asking you questions in relation to a crime he thinks you've committed is "I need to speak to my attorney and I do not consent to any search."

And no, I don't hate cops. I spent 17 years in volunteer EMS, working hand in hand with the police. Most cops are upstanding folks who are trying to do a tough job that needs doing. However, their job is to get evidence that can be used to convict you, not to get the truth of the matter. There's a crucial difference there.
Click to expand...

I don't know who provided your Concealed Carry class, but as far as "Friend" vs "Foe," you won't harm your case being cooperative with LE, but you certainly should make no statements without advice of counsel.

That said, you should not assume an adversarial posture with LE, especially if you've used a firearm in a self defense situation, or you may find yourself locked up with some less than upstanding humans, while the court determines what happens next.
 
Yes, no , and I don't know are the three statements you really need to be comfortable with when being questioned in a legal investigation. Do not speculate on what you *think* happened, do not theorize on why someone or yourself did something. Like Dan and Jay also said do not incriminate yourself. I always love it when people are telling a story and say "to be honest with you..." that so implies that they have not been honest thus far.
 
However, in Wisconsin, I believe the statute reads that a refusal to take a breath test, blood test, or field sobriety test all constitute admission of guilt regarding suspected DUI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top