Yet another DUI...ish question.

I can carry concealed in 32 states, But not one of them is the state I live in. :(

Let me ask this question. Anyone carry while flying? What is the rule on that? I would think as long as I wasn't going into any off limit places inside secure terminal areas and flying to from legal states, I should be good to go right? or not??
 
Very interesting. This depends on whether your state misdemeanor tapes go out with the DUI files. The records of the various states range from "all in a glop" to selectable by types. If michigan sends "all in a glop" then you have another alcohol event outside the home and the agency would act upon it.
 
Very interesting. This depends on whether your state misdemeanor tapes go out with the DUI files. The records of the various states range from "all in a glop" to selectable by types. If michigan sends "all in a glop" then you have another alcohol event outside the home and the agency would act upon it.

Sir but he is under the limit for motor offense. There is no arrest and no conviction for motor related offense neither any DOT action?
 
Wait I'm not unregistered ;)lets redo this :
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbchien
Very interesting. This depends on whether your state misdemeanor tapes go out with the DUI files. The records of the various states range from "all in a glop" to selectable by types. If michigan sends "all in a glop" then you have another alcohol event outside the home and the agency would act upon it.
Sir but he is under the limit for motor offense. There is no arrest and no conviction for motor related offense neither any DOT action?
 
Wait I'm not unregistered ;)lets redo this :
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbchien
Very interesting. This depends on whether your state misdemeanor tapes go out with the DUI files. The records of the various states range from "all in a glop" to selectable by types. If michigan sends "all in a glop" then you have another alcohol event outside the home and the agency would act upon it.
Sir but he is under the limit for motor offense. There is no arrest and no conviction for motor related offense neither any DOT action?
Sir, DUI is not the only route to provoke a medical evaluation of possible alcoholism.

Your spouse can call in and say, FSL drinks too much. And then it begins. The notion that DUI is the only way into the system is completely naieve. I have defended a couple of those.
 
Sir, DUI is not the only route to provoke a medical evaluation of possible alcoholism.

Your spouse can call in and say, FSL drinks too much. And then it begins. The notion that DUI is the only way into the system is completely naieve. I have defended a couple of those.

Cool glad I'm not married anymore ;) however IMHO they can't send any tapes out in absence of arrest not to mention the finger prints.

Having said that I really like your posts and and your work on this forum and others. Thank you for your work Sir !
 
No, as I said prev "don't care". If you rely on my legal advice on a web forum, you deserve everything you get in terms of jail time.

I'm not looking for legal advice. Whether recent use of mouthwash products adversely affects BAC devices is a scientific question. It just seems kind of rude to post claims in a Web forum and then tell people to look it up themselves when asked to substantiate them.
 
I can carry concealed in 32 states, But not one of them is the state I live in. :(

Let me ask this question. Anyone carry while flying? What is the rule on that? I would think as long as I wasn't going into any off limit places inside secure terminal areas and flying to from legal states, I should be good to go right? or not??

I once was told by my safety pilot that she had a gun with her. I don't know why she mentioned it, but I guess she wouldn't have mentioned it if it weren't legal.
 
Last edited:
Swallowing is not required to show an erroneous reading.

Yes it is, if the BAC test is being administered properly. There is a required waiting period where the officer must observe the subject before administering the breath test and ensure no alcohol has been consumed during the observation period, specifically to ensure any alcohol that might remain in the mouth cannot pollute the breath sample. It does not take very long for the alcohol in the mouth to dissipate and the observation period is proven to be reliably sufficient. If the observation period was not observed, it is possible that Listerine or other similar product could result in a positive and/or elevated BAC, which would become reliable and normal shortly thereafter.

If you consume Listerine (and if you'd like, I can relate a number of quite sad and colorful stories about this), you are consuming alcohol and it doesn't matter whether you meant to get intoxicated or not. Note that DUI/DWI an initiatory crime, meaning no element of intent is required.

And yes, I have a lot of experience in this area. :)
 
Sir but he is under the limit for motor offense. There is no arrest and no conviction for motor related offense neither any DOT action?

There is no such thing as being "under the limit" in Michigan (or most other states). .08 is only the point where you are presumed to be intoxicated. At .07 or less, they have to actually show impairment.

And to answer one earlier piece of misleading information. If this had been a motor vehicle action, "infraction" makes no difference. As a non-MVA, the fact that it's not a "crime" means it doesn't warrant reporting under 18w.
 
Yes it is, if the BAC test is being administered properly. There is a required waiting period where the officer must observe the subject before administering the breath test and ensure no alcohol has been consumed during the observation period, specifically to ensure any alcohol that might remain in the mouth cannot pollute the breath sample. It does not take very long for the alcohol in the mouth to dissipate and the observation period is proven to be reliably sufficient. If the observation period was not observed, it is possible that Listerine or other similar product could result in a positive and/or elevated BAC, which would become reliable and normal shortly thereafter.

If you consume Listerine (and if you'd like, I can relate a number of quite sad and colorful stories about this), you are consuming alcohol and it doesn't matter whether you meant to get intoxicated or not. Note that DUI/DWI an initiatory crime, meaning no element of intent is required.

And yes, I have a lot of experience in this area. :)

There's enough officers out there that don't even know how their speed guns work (found this out when I disemboweled the last one in front of the judge). Do you *really* expect me to trust them to know how the roadside breathalyzer works? Most of the ones I've run into seem so excited to "do something" that they don't give a crap whether what they are doing is right.
 
I once was told by my safety pilot that she had a gun with her. I don't know why she mentioned it, but I guess she wouldn't have mentioned it if it weren't legal.
Maybe she was worried about the PIC? :dunno::D

That's the same as innocently talking to a female server or bartender. When they say "my boyfriend's a cop" that's the same as coming across a skunk with its tail raised. :hairraise:
 
Sir but he is under the limit for motor offense. There is no arrest and no conviction for motor related offense neither any DOT action?
You're assuming facts not in evidence, to wit, that there is no "motor vehicle action" as defined in 14 CFR 61.15. A "motor vehicle action" can occur without a conviction, and there's nothing that says the state can't take such action in this case. Not saying they will, just saying we don't know they won't, and if they do, it triggers the requirement for the 60-day report to Civil Aviation Security.
 
Last edited:
Being in violation of his Concealed Pistol License even if he's in a vehicle is NOT a MVA under any definition of the word.
 
Being in violation of his Concealed Pistol License even if he's in a vehicle is NOT a MVA under any definition of the word.
It is if they take his DL over this business and he was driving when it happened. See 61.15: "...for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug."
 
Wait, Listerine?

Callin Bull crap on the listerine. Yes its 21.65 alcohol. No you dont swallow it. When you blow, they have you blow looonnnnngggg deeeeeeep and hard...... they are getting you to blow the air in your mouth, cheeks and upper airway through the device then you keep blowing until its getting the air that comes deep down from the lungs to sample your BAC. Mouthwash doesn't impact that.

Now.. if you walk up to one of those machines in a bar, take a swig of mouthwash, swish, spit then grab the straw and blow... heck yea you will skew the reading.

In my state, you wont be doing that. You wont be blowing into a handheld device. If there is suspicion of DUI they are taking you to a police station with an intoxilyzer. There is time involved in that, and you will have quite a bit of difficulty getting to mouthwash with the pretty little handcuffs on.

This old wives tale is the stuff of jailhouse lawyers...
 
Just so everyone knows - the key to beating a DUI rap is the reason for the stop. . . . if there is no probable cause for a stop them the arrest gets tossed - does not affect the 'motor vehicle action' at all however. Or the arrest for that matter. . . .

I have had quite the month getting friends and family off of motor vehicle infractions - there are so many ways to avoid conviction - and while the police are pretty good at testifying - they are not lawyers - and don't know the rules of evidence for cr@p and certainly don't how to respond to an objection.

I've managed to prevent the cops in the last two family speeding tickets from testifying as to the speed limit - which kind of puts a crimp in a prosecution for speeding. Then there was my wife who crossed over two double yellow lines to make a U-turn in front a no U-turn sign - who knew that No U-turn signs are never properly installed and that it was legal to make a u-turn over a double double yellow. . . . not me until I started researching it. Imagine the officers surprise to show up and not be allowed to testify as to the sign since he did not bring the paperwork showing it was legally installed.

Its not the facts or the law that win criminal cases, its procedure. . . .

If you live in California - please- plead not guilty. Show up in court - and do a modicum of research. Why give the State $450 [which is the average fine and costs these days] and then waste a day doing traffic school?

In my recent experience all over Los Angeles county - at trial 60% of the officers do not show up -and 35% are not completely prepared and bail on the case before it starts if you show up - and then 5% actually get heard - and of that 5% - about 60% of that 5% has lawyers and the cops lose. So if you plead not guilty you have a 2% chance of being convicted. Sure beats sending in the check.
 
Just so everyone knows - the key to beating a DUI rap is the reason for the stop. . . . if there is no probable cause for a stop them the arrest gets tossed - does not affect the 'motor vehicle action' at all however. Or the arrest for that matter. . . .
I think what Joe is saying is that the DUI case gets tossed, not the arrest. The arrest will still have to be reported on the next FAA medical application. Also, I've heard of plenty of cases where the DUI charge is either dropped, stet'd, or otherwise made to go away without a conviction or other type of guilty finding on condition of attending "driving school" (or whatever they call it in your state). From an FAA perspective, since it evolved from a DUI charge, that's still a "motor vehicle action" which must be reported to FAA Civil Aviation Security within 60 days of the action even if the criminal case goes away without a conviction.

IOW, Randy Babbitt's still going to have to report his DUI arrest on his next medical even though he managed to get a friendly judge to toss the DUI case on "probable cause" grounds.
 
Last edited:
If the arrest was made without probable cause, then the arrest itself was not a lawful arrest, and should not be reportable...

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER
 
If the arrest was made without probable cause, then the arrest itself was not a lawful arrest, and should not be reportable...
The FAA doesn't see it that way. You will still have to report and explain it on your next medical application, and the constitutional protections on evidence and probable cause don't apply with the same strictness in administrative law as they do in criminal law -- they are going to find out what you blew (or that you refused to blow) and act on that basis.
 
Last edited:
Did a member of the California bar just say that probable cause is needed before a vehicle can be stopped by the police for possible DUI, and then commence to ragging police for not knowing the finer points of law?
 
The FAA doesn't see it that way. You will still have to report and explain it on your next medical application, and the constitutional protections on evidence and probable cause don't apply with the same strictness in administrative law as they do in criminal law -- they are going to find out what you blew (or that you refused to blow) and act on that basis.

Yes, but notice that he used the world "should". He is expressing opinion of what he thinks a fair FAA would look like, with an implicit acknowledgement that is not how the FAA actually behaves.
 
But hey, I'm not unregistered, so there's no hiding here.

I just got issued my Michigan Concealed Pistol License (yes it is a license not a certificate) and I may not carry concealed while under the influence with penalties as follows.

BAC of .02 - .07 = State civil infraction, $100 fine, and up to 1-year CPL license revocation.
BAC of .08 - .09 = 93-day misdemeanor, $100 fine, and up to 3-year CPL license revocation.
BAC of .10 or more = 93-day misdemeanor, $100 fine, and permanent CPL license revocation.

So, let's say for whatever reason I blow a .03 while I'm carrying and driving (yes, Listerine will show up at that level if recently used). Is this necessary to report to the FAA?

Ok - the only convoluted thing I can come up with is that this could be classified as an alcohol related safety incident by someone who wanted to stretch it by combining multiple FARs with state firearm laws. For that, you could have your certficate suspended for a year. But I don't think it is reportable on your medical.

And, as I said...it's convoluted. I'm no judge, but I think I'd laugh at a prosecuter that brought me this.
 
Ok - the only convoluted thing I can come up with is that this could be classified as an alcohol related safety incident by someone who wanted to stretch it by combining multiple FARs with state firearm laws. For that, you could have your certficate suspended for a year. But I don't think it is reportable on your medical.

And, as I said...it's convoluted. I'm no judge, but I think I'd laugh at a prosecuter that brought me this.

In my personal opinion, it's fairly simple and not at all convoluted: The FAA both would, and should, see evidence that a pilot mixed alcohol with an activity where he shouldn't have, and was caught and called on the carpet in a legal proceeding whether or not he was eventually found liable, and therefore before exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate his medical status should be further explored - first with his AME with the 8500 and then with CAMI :dunno:
 
These threads are sad another 100 potential pilots just started boat shopping...
 
And 99 of them I wouldn't want to meet on a boat either.

Maybe, tolerance for inane rules probably doesn't correlate with piloting ability. Wait and see if they up caring if the local airport gets shuttered.
 
I think what Joe is saying is that the DUI case gets tossed, not the arrest. The arrest will still have to be reported on the next FAA medical application. Also, I've heard of plenty of cases where the DUI charge is either dropped, stet'd, or otherwise made to go away without a conviction or other type of guilty finding on condition of attending "driving school" (or whatever they call it in your state). From an FAA perspective, since it evolved from a DUI charge, that's still a "motor vehicle action" which must be reported to FAA Civil Aviation Security within 60 days of the action even if the criminal case goes away without a conviction.

IOW, Randy Babbitt's still going to have to report his DUI arrest on his next medical even though he managed to get a friendly judge to toss the DUI case on "probable cause" grounds.

yep - thanks for fixin' my illiteracy.
 
Did a member of the California bar just say that probable cause is needed before a vehicle can be stopped by the police for possible DUI, and then commence to ragging police for not knowing the finer points of law?

yeah - and i'll correct myself - reasonable suspicion. PC is needed for arrest. Bad, Joe, stop posting before TWO full cups of coffee have been consumed . . .
 
Just so everyone knows - the key to beating a DUI rap is the reason for the stop. . . . if there is no probable cause for a stop them the arrest gets tossed - does not affect the 'motor vehicle action' at all however. Or the arrest for that matter. . . .

I have had quite the month getting friends and family off of motor vehicle infractions - there are so many ways to avoid conviction - and while the police are pretty good at testifying - they are not lawyers - and don't know the rules of evidence for cr@p and certainly don't how to respond to an objection.

I've managed to prevent the cops in the last two family speeding tickets from testifying as to the speed limit - which kind of puts a crimp in a prosecution for speeding. Then there was my wife who crossed over two double yellow lines to make a U-turn in front a no U-turn sign - who knew that No U-turn signs are never properly installed and that it was legal to make a u-turn over a double double yellow. . . . not me until I started researching it. Imagine the officers surprise to show up and not be allowed to testify as to the sign since he did not bring the paperwork showing it was legally installed.

Its not the facts or the law that win criminal cases, its procedure. . . .

If you live in California - please- plead not guilty. Show up in court - and do a modicum of research. Why give the State $450 [which is the average fine and costs these days] and then waste a day doing traffic school?

In my recent experience all over Los Angeles county - at trial 60% of the officers do not show up -and 35% are not completely prepared and bail on the case before it starts if you show up - and then 5% actually get heard - and of that 5% - about 60% of that 5% has lawyers and the cops lose. So if you plead not guilty you have a 2% chance of being convicted. Sure beats sending in the check.

Interesting, thank you. More problems come with out-of-state speeding tickets. My husband got one in another state and did not want to return to plead not guilty.

What do you mean about No U-turn signs not properly installed? What about any traffic signs?
 
Certified PBTs (portable breath test) are calibrated to be accurate at only one reading-- 0.08. If it doesn't read exactly that, the police do not know exactly what your BAC is. They just know if it is more or less than that. That means that a reading of 0.03 is not scientifically reliable that your BAC is really 0.03. Thus, if they want to prove your BAC is a specific level, then they need a different tool, such as a blood draw.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, thank you. More problems come with out-of-state speeding tickets. My husband got one in another state and did not want to return to plead not guilty.

What do you mean about No U-turn signs not properly installed? What about any traffic signs?

depends on the state - Calif makes traffic tickets a game if you are willing to play. All traffic signs need to be properly installed with a reason for being there - even stop signs and lights. Calif is really big on large centralized government so most 'traffic control devices,' i.e., signs and lights, need to be justified by a traffic engineers report. Speed limits are the same way.

There is a document in Cailfornia called the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [its actually federal] but the link is here:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2012.htm

and California requires that all signs and limits be adopted in accordance with the standards therein. Moreover, California also provides full evidentiary hearing rights to anyone who has a citation for violating a posted sign directing or prohibiting conduct. And Calif has the police officer be the prosecutor. So when the cop shows up and stays that "defendant failed to stop completely at the stop sign," I object that the officer is not competent to testify as to the stop being a lawful stop sign. I point the 2 laws - 1 a VC section - which requires that all signs be posted IAW the MUTCD and the other that a witness cannot testify as to facts of which they have no direct knowledge [hearsay].

The officer can testify there was a sign there - but cannot testify that it was a legally installed one. Absent that very important bit of information, a person cannot be convicted here. The only people competent to testify as to the signs are the engineers who required them as part of a traffic engineering survey and City Clerk that the City Council properly adopted the sign in accordance with the survey. That is NOT going to happen in traffic court. Like I said, California traffic enforcement is a game - you can figure this out, plead not guilty and win, or hire a lawyer for $150-200 to do the same thing [they have dozens every day so its pretty profitable work] or pay $500, do no work - except for wasting a nice weekend day doing 8 hours of traffic school.

Many states have a law that say that it is a legal presumption that the sign is valid. This shifts the burden of proof to you to prove it isn't. Calif [and a few others] have never gone down that road. since infraction penalties are so low - and there is no jail time involved the courts pretty much give the states lots of leeway on shifting the burdens of proof to the defendant.

Some states have pretty common sense rules- and an enforcement system that is not a major component of the budget. Others, like the liberal mavens, [CA/IL/NY/MA] use traffic fines to augment budgets and this a simple failure to stop at a stop sign is a $500+ event plus the loss of a day doing traffic school to buy a 'dismissal' from the state. The process is no different than a protection racket. The 'courtesy' notice you get from the court does not allow you to plead not guilty - you can pay, seek traffic school or plead guilty with an explanation but if you want to plead not guilty you can do that only in person or on line.

There is one city in Calif in Orange County that RARELY sees traffic enforcement of residents other than warnings because the citizens have learned to plead not guilty to everything - which requires officers in court - over time spending, etc etc etc. So the police commissions simply chatted with their chiefs and instead of issuing tickets and then dismissing them when the defendant shows up in court, they just give residents warnings - unless it results in accident, property damage or dui or happens in a school or senior zone.
 
Certified PBTs (portable breath test) are calibrated to be accurate at only one reading-- 0.08. If it doesn't read exactly that, the police do not know exactly what your BAC is. They just know if it is more or less than that. That means that a reading of 0.03 is not scientifically reliable that your BAC is really 0.03. Thus, if they want to prove your BAC is a specific level, then they need a different tool, such as a blood draw.

...or a breath testing instrument that isn't the portable type that you reference.
 
In my personal opinion, it's fairly simple and not at all convoluted: The FAA both would, and should, see evidence that a pilot mixed alcohol with an activity where he shouldn't have, and was caught and called on the carpet in a legal proceeding whether or not he was eventually found liable, and therefore before exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate his medical status should be further explored - first with his AME with the 8500 and then with CAMI :dunno:

LOLOLOLOLOL

Warned ya...
 
LOLOLOLOLOL

Warned ya...

You ain't a judge and I ain't a prosecutor.

But let's get back to Ed's initial post here and what we are talking about which is FAA's attempt through the medical certification process to ferret out potential alcohol problems for further exploration before issuance. People attempting to torture reason and the English language to avoid answering yes to a question on the 8500 form clearly intended for them seems to be a common theme here on POA.
 
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