Wagstaff late-night "runway incident" at KOSH?

dmccormack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, their statement was that cooperating with law enforcement without the advice of your attorney could very well harm your case. This was confirmed by a couple of lawyers I've spoken to.

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.
Click to expand...
You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. Most cops will take you in if you lawyer up, just because they take it as a sign that you've got something to hide.
 
How about protection against unreasonable searches? Hmmm?
Click to expand...

You mean the right we enjoy when going on an airliner?
 
jmaynard said:
Actually, their statement was that cooperating with law enforcement without the advice of your attorney could very well harm your case. This was confirmed by a couple of lawyers I've spoken to.
Click to expand...

"Cooperation" defined as "Yes, officer," "No, officer," stand where you're told, offer you hands for cuffing, don't be belligerent, don't resist arrest.

We are in violent agreement on the point -- do NOT discuss the case without an attorney present!
 
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...

Well Ted now that you probably have a PA Drivers License I'd seriously reconsider the first one or you may have the DL suspended for a year regardless of guilt or innocence.

I have the name of some good counsel up in Williamsport if you want a consult:rolleyes:
 
I would refuse a test if I thought I were over the legal limit, and accept one if I thought I wasn't.

I have let many people go over the years who "blew" under the legal limit - with a ride home of course.

Problem is, when you are near the legal limit, you have a hard time self-evaluating how many drinks you have had :rolleyes:

Best thing is to simply not drive if you have had more than a couple. Even if you are in a golf cart :goofy:
 
alaskaflyer said:
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...
Click to expand...

Hmm. Well, should any similar such situation happen to me, I know who not to call on for support.

I agree, I've certainly seen the when there's smoke there's fire thing too plenty of times. That doesn't mean that it is a just thing for anyone to jump to conclusions based on that. That is my point. Experience may indicate a trend, but even if 90% of the time you're right, that doesn't make you 90% right in this case, it's either right or wrong, and none of us know the answer to that.
 
AcroBoy said:
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.
Click to expand...

However the second charge is not a DUI it is an OUI which buy the law she could have been charged with by an overzealous LEO* because she happend to be sitting on a golf cart that had the keys in it.... reguardless of wether she was driving it or just using it as a convient seat.

You all have very little facts and you are jumping to conclusions.... wait till the facts are known before you throw her to the wolves. I would hope none of you would end up on a jury for me.

Missa

* not saying this was what happend because I do not know the facts, it's just a possiblility.
 
LOL I love it. Don't assume anything*

*unless of course you want to assume that she is being railroaded by nefarious law enforcement agents, then it is OK ;)
 
alaskaflyer said:
LOL I love it. Don't assume anything*

*unless of course you want to assume that she is being railroaded by nefarious law enforcement agents, then it is OK ;)
Click to expand...
No, I think she's demonstrating what I attempted to demonstrate, that there are alternative possibilities that may or may not be correct. Let's wait until we hear the "facts"*

* or as close as we can get to the facts after the media and the lawyers and the publicity agents are done with them.
 
gprellwitz said:
No, I think she's demonstrating what I attempted to demonstrate, that there are alternative possibilities that may or may not be correct. Let's wait until we hear the "facts"*

* or as close as we can get to the facts after the media and the lawyers and the publicity agents are done with them.
Click to expand...

+1. Those of us saying there are other possibilities are not saying that she's innocent, rather saying that we don't have the facts, and neither do any of us.
 
OK, but let's dispel some of these alternative theories that she was walking or simply sitting on a golf cart with the keys in it.

So she was either impaired or she wasn't. She says she wasn't. The sheriff's office says she was.

You have the right to refuse a test. This is America. But you have to accept the consequences when you do, especially if you had the slightest bit of alcohol in your system which would lead an officer (who was called there because you were driving in a closed area - that is called bad driving behavior) down the road to suspicion that you were driving while impaired. As I and some others on here have said, if you aren't impaired you are better off taking the test, even if you have had some small amount of alcohol, otherwise your refusal can rightly be used against you in court as an element establishing a guilty mind. Note she never denies drinking. Some of you have socialized with her at Oshkosh and other places. Everyone has an opinion ;)

On Thursday, July 31, at Oshkosh about 11 p.m., I was driving from the Gathering of Eagles dinner at the EAA Museum to the North side of the airport, on airport property. My vehicle had the proper credentials, and I planned to take a route to the north side of the field down the taxiway along runway 18/36, through the warbirds area and then on the perimeter road. It was really dark, the runway was closed and I mistakenly ended up on the runway for about 1500' to the end of runway 36, before turning off onto the grass into the warbirds area.

As soon as I turned off the runway I was stopped by EAA Security, who promptly called the Winnebago County Sheriff and two police cars arrived. The police quickly took me into custody and I was released at 2:30 am and have since retained a lawyer. Even though I had a driver with me at the time I chose to drive because I had navigated this route before and it was very dark that night. Reports that I was driving impaired are simply not grounded in fact and are nothing more than rumors.

Obviously I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I feel horrible about this and am very sorry for any trouble I've caused. I would like to warn all pilots to be mindful and present when operating any airport. In today's climate of heightened security, it is easy to see how an innocent mistake at any airport can lead to a frightening experience.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jmaynard said:
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 have a real problem with this statement. My job, is 1: protect the public, 2: gather facts about alleged crimes and 3: follow my departments policies while carrying out 1 & 2 and make sure I follow the law in the process. I personally could care less if those facts lead to proving someone guilty, or not guilty. I just want it to lead to the truth..or as close to the truth as I can gather and help protect the public in the process. Contrary to popular belief, we don't get a raise based on how many people we put in jail or how many convictions we get out of the ones we do. I couldn't begin to tell you what my arrest/conviction rate is, and I don't know a cop who can.

You may find cops whose only goal seems to be to make an arrest, but I can assure you, their JOB is to protect the public, and gather facts, wherever those facts may lead them. It's the prosecutors job to get a conviction based on the evidence.
 
gprellwitz said:
Let's not. Let's just wait!:yes:
Click to expand...

+1

I am dissapointed that something like this happend. That she put herself into a situation where she could have been accused of this rightly or wrongly. But I'm also highly dissapointed in the system with zero tolerance that has turned into more of a revenue stream then a justice system.
 
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...

That's interesting. I was a cop for twenty-nine years and I never had a lawyer tell his client not to take the test. Something about lawyers being an agent of the court.
 
ausrere said:
I have a real problem with this statement. My job, is 1: protect the public, 2: gather facts about alleged crimes and 3: follow my departments policies while carrying out 1 & 2 and make sure I follow the law in the process. I personally could care less if those facts lead to proving someone guilty, or not guilty. I just want it to lead to the truth..or as close to the truth as I can gather and help protect the public in the process. Contrary to popular belief, we don't get a raise based on how many people we put in jail or how many convictions we get out of the ones we do. I couldn't begin to tell you what my arrest/conviction rate is, and I don't know a cop who can.

You may find cops whose only goal seems to be to make an arrest, but I can assure you, their JOB is to protect the public, and gather facts, wherever those facts may lead them. It's the prosecutors job to get a conviction based on the evidence.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your perspective Lisa.:yes:
 
Maxmosbey said:
That's interesting. I was a cop for twenty-nine years and I never had a lawyer tell his client not to take the test. Something about lawyers being an agent of the court.
Click to expand...

Being a cop for over 26 years and having arrested several hundred for DWI, I have seen attorneys tell clients to refuse only when it is a felony DWI arrest.
 
SkyHog said:
?? I's confusered.
Click to expand...

OH, I just heard an echo in here a few minutes ago, soon after I posted my last post. It must have been an echo, because it looked - I'm sorry, sounded - almost exactly like another post that was removed this morning for violating the ROC. Something about me being stupid. But I now see that post has been wisely deleted hopefully by its author. Of course I could have imagined it B)
 
Good luck Alaskaflyer and SkyHog.

I suspect that someday you'll understand exactly how wrong you are.

As for those who delete posts, do try to think about it just a little bit beforehand. When I question someone's intelligence it is because they have drawn a foolish conclusion just as Alaskaflyer did with my "provoke a response" comment. There is no way that a reasonably intellignet person would infer that I suggested that LE provoked drinking.

This post will be deleted of course. I don't doubt that my membership will be canceled. So what? That won't change the accuracy of the content. Good bye.
 
Dean said:
Being a cop for over 26 years and having arrested several hundred for DWI, I have seen attorneys tell clients to refuse only when it is a felony DWI arrest.
Click to expand...

I've been a cop for over 23 years, and I've never heard an attorney tell a client not to take the test. Had plenty of people TELL me their attorneys told 'em not to though. :)
 
You know, Clark, I'm not sure what got you so worked up, but it's pretty simple. Intelligent conversation and friendly debate. No name calling. There's simply no reason to get so worked up.

We're all friends here, even when we disagree. I have very little respect for somebody that resorts to name calling because they lack the ability to convey their argument.
 
Apparently I'm wrong then. There is no implied consent law, and no reason to take the breathalyzer when prompted to. I must have dreamed up Implied Consent! How dare I take the time to avoid calling names, and instead pointing out fact backed up with references.

Next time, its just "Patty Wagstaff's a doody face, because I said so."
 
FlyNE said:
You know, Clark, I'm not sure what got you so worked up, but it's pretty simple. Intelligent conversation and friendly debate. No name calling. There's simply no reason to get so worked up.

We're all friends here, even when we disagree. I have very little respect for somebody that resorts to name calling because they lack the ability to convey their argument.
Click to expand...

You're quite right that it is pretty simple. Alaskaflyer twisted my comment to ask how LE provoked drinking. I inquired, inquired mind you, if he was stupid because the inference that LE provoked drinking was nowhere in my post.

My follow-up was not name calling. It was identification. I do understand how identification can be embarassing for people but the false inference is provocation. Sorry folks but I do call them as I see them. If that isn't acceptable on this forum then I have zero interest in participation.
 
SkyHog said:
Apparently I'm wrong then. There is no implied consent law, and no reason to take the breathalyzer when prompted to. I must have dreamed up Implied Consent! How dare I take the time to avoid calling names, and instead pointing out fact backed up with references.

Next time, its just "Patty Wagstaff's a doody face, because I said so."
Click to expand...
Not according to the New Mexico state legislature...

66-8-107. Implied consent to submit to chemical test.

A. Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of the Implied Consent Act [66-8-105 NMSA 1978], to chemical tests of his breath or blood or both, approved by the scientific laboratory division of the department of health pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-1-22 NMSA 1978 as determined by a law enforcement officer, or for the purpose of determining the drug or alcohol content of his blood if arrested for any offense arising out of the acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or drug.

B. A test of blood or breath or both, approved by the scientific laboratory division of the department of health pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-1-22 NMSA 1978, shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug.
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
Nope, that's wrong.
Click to expand...
It's the law in your state and pretty much every state in the union. Driving a vehicle is not a right; it's a privilege. And, they can place conditions on that privilege. This is one of 'em.
 
KennyFlys said:
It's the law in your state and pretty much every state in the union. Driving a vehicle is not a right; it's a privilege. And, they can place conditions on that privilege. This is one of 'em.
Click to expand...

Nope, nope, doesn't work that way. Implied consent doesn't exist.
 
Clark1961 said:
You're quite right that it is pretty simple. Alaskaflyer twisted my comment to ask how LE provoked drinking. I inquired, inquired mind you, if he was stupid because the inference that LE provoked drinking was nowhere in my post.

My follow-up was not name calling. It was identification. I do understand how identification can be embarassing for people but the false inference is provocation. Sorry folks but I do call them as I see them. If that isn't acceptable on this forum then I have zero interest in participation.
Click to expand...

Good to see Dale Carnegie is alive and well.

:D:D:D:D
 
No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.
 
TMetzinger said:
No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. Yes he is.
Click to expand...

No tisin't.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • arguing.gif
    arguing.gif
    107.9 KB · Views: 88
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top