Motor Vehicle Action To The Faa example essay topic

Introduction Three aviation students with similar cases involving Minor in Consumption charges will be discussed. The three students are Mr. Jack Daniels, Mr. Johnnie Walker, and Ms. Brandy Wine. We will look at each student separately and answer questions pertaining to each of their situations. Some of the questions include whether or not the students need to comply with the reporting requirement of 14 CFR SS 61.15. What, if any, reports do they have to make on their next medical? We will also discuss Ms. Wine's situation, whether or not the police stop violated the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. Jack Daniels Mr. Daniels was cited for Minor in Consumption of Alcohol, p led guilty, and was sentenced to pay a $100 fine. Mr. Daniels wants to know what he needs to do to comply with the FAA so that he can remain a pilot. According to 14 CFR SS 61.15 (e), "Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide a written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA... no later than 60 days after the motor vehicle action". To determine whether Mr. Daniels must comply with this regulation, a "motor vehicle action" must be defined. As per 14 CFR SS 61.15 (c), a motor vehicle action means: (1) A conviction after November 29, 1990, for the violation of any Federal or State statute relating 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; (2) The cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license to operate a motor vehicle after November 29, 1990, 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; (3) The denial after November 29, 1990, of an application for a license to operate a motor vehicle for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated b alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.

Mr. Daniels was not involved with a motor vehicle; therefore, he does not fall under any of these definitions of a motor vehicle action. This means that Mr. Daniels will not have to report to the FAA. Mr. Daniels will have to note the MIC on his medical. Section 18 (v) of the application for a medical asks whether the applicant has a history of non traffic conviction (s).

Since MIC is a misdemeanor and considered a non traffic conviction, he will have to mark this "yes". In addition, he will have to name the charge for which he was convicted and the date of conviction in "explanations" box on the medical application. Mr. Daniels has a bright future ahead of him. The MIC that he received should affect him very little, especially if this is the only one on his record. By the time that he is looking for a job in the aviation field, he should have a couple years experience under his belt. The airline might ask him about the MIC, but if he explains the situation truthfully, there should not be a problem.

Mr. Daniels should refrain from consuming or possessing alcohol, as any future MIC / MIP/DUI / DWI would look very bad on his record and possibly create some problems for him. As seen in Bates, Petition of, Docket No. SM-4080, the FAA denied a medical certificate to Don Bates because of a DWI conviction and the belief he was an alcoholic. However, the NTSB did not believe that he was an alcoholic. Although Mr. Bates received his medical, Mr. Daniels would not want something like this to occur. Mr. Johnnie Walker Mr. Johnnie Walker was charged with MIC while driving.

He p led guilty and was sentence to pay a $100 fine and his driver's license was suspended for a period of 90 days. When we look at 14 CFR SS 61.15 (c), we can see that Mr. Walker fits under part (2) and therefore has committed a motor vehicle action. As seen in 14 CFR SS 61.15 (e), Mr. Walker must report the following: (1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate number; (2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the administrative action; (3) The date of the conviction or administrative action; (4) The State that holds the recorded of conviction or administrative action; and (5) A statement whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a previously reported motor vehicle action. In addition to the report to the FAA, Mr. Walker must also look at the information he must supply on his next medical application.

Section 18 (w) asks if you have committed a motor vehicle action, it contains the same requirement as 14 CFR SS 61.15 (c). He will have to answer yes to this question, and provide an explanation. The explanation should contain: (1) the alcohol or drug offense for which you were convicted or the type of administrative action involved; (2) the name of the state or other jurisdiction involved; and (3) the date of the conviction and / or administrative action. However, Mr. Walker will not have to answer yes to part (v) since he committed a traffic related misdemeanor. If Mr. Walker fails to report his motor vehicle action, his certificate will be suspended or revoked and denied any application for any certificate or rating. Although 14 CFR SS 61.15 (f) does not say how long the suspension will be, in many cases it is a 30-day suspension, such as in Anderson vs. Hinson, Docket No.

SE-12343 (1994). In this case, Mr. Anderson failed to report a motor vehicle action, and received a 30-day suspension. Although he said he did not believe that FAA had given adequate notice and his license suspension did not merit a report, the ALJ did not find him credible. If Mr. Walker receives another motor vehicle action, he has very little chance of flying with the majors.

If he commits another motor vehicle action within 3 years, his license will be suspended or revoked and denied any application for any certificate or rating, as per 14 CFR SS 61.15 (d). Mr. Walker must still report the motor vehicle action even if he quits flying. Kearney vs. Hinson, Docket No. SE-13037 shows us that even though the pilot said he had retired from flying when he received his DUI, he was still holding a current pilot certificate. He received a 30-day suspension also. Mr. Walker is in a precarious situation, the airlines might not like the fact that he has a motor vehicle action, but if the record is clean, he should still be able to get a job.

Receiving his MIC while driving also complicates things. The airlines tend to frown on drunk driving even more than a MIC, and this could make getting a job harder. Mr. Walker should stay away from fruits of an evil seed altogether until he is no longer a minor. Ms. Brandy Wine Since Ms. Brandy Wine's fate has not been decided yet, there is much more that can be done to help her. Ms. Wine was stopped by a policeman while walking down the street and failed the subsequent Breathalyzer test. She has not been to court, but if she pleads guilty, she will likely receive the same consequences as Mr. Walker because of the state laws.

If Ms. Wine is found guilty of MIC, she will receive a $100 fine and a 90-day drivers license suspension. Even though she was nowhere near an automobile, she still meets the requirements of committing a motor vehicle action. In that respect, she will have to do everything that Mr. Johnnie Walker did, as well as have the same consequences. The issue with Ms. Wine's situation is the way in which the police officer stopped her. The policeman stopped his car, got out, stepped in front of Ms. Wine, and asked her how she was doing. She felt compelled to stop and answer the officer.

While the officer could argue that he was only trying to serve and protect, he could have done that without getting out of his car and stopping her. If we look at some cases that discuss Fourth Amendment issues, we can see if her constitutional rights were violated. First, we will look at Terry vs. Ohio, 392 US 1, which is a landmark case that sets the standard for many other search and seizure cases. When the officer observed the suspect is this case, he noticed that they were walking in front of a store repeatedly, looking in the windows. The suspects briefly met with a third man, who they later rejoined at another store. After the officer followed them to the other store, he patted down one of the suspects and found a gun.

He then place all three under arrest. In this case, the suspect's behavior gave the policeman reasonable suspicion. Therefore, he did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he patted them down. From this case, we can see that if the officer has reasonable suspicion they are not breaking any constitutional rights.

In Ms. Wine's situation, she was simply walking down the street, not staggering. In US vs. Berry, 670 F. 2d 583 (1982), two DEA agents stop two suspects outside the airport in Atlanta, Georgia. One agent thought he recognized Berry, and the suspects stared intently at the agent while they were in the airport. The DEA agents ask about Berry's travel plans once he was outside the airport. When Berry produced identification, it was under his real name, instead of the name on the tickets. One of the agents recognized the name as a man they were supposed to watch.

Berry then agreed to go to the DEA office and agreed to a search. Since Berry consented to the searches, his fourth amendment right was not violated and both suspects were convicted. Once again, we see that reasonable suspicion is necessary for a search and seizure. Florida vs. Royer, 460 US 491 (1983) is an example of an illegal search and seizure. The suspect never gave the officers consent to a search.

The prior court ruling was invalid because the officer had not established probable cause before making the arrest. On the other end of the spectrum, US vs. Mendenhall, 446 US 544 (1980), is an example of the suspect giving full permission for a search and seizure. Mendenhall gave the officers permission to talk with her and to search her person and possessions. She had demonstrated characteristics of a person unlawfully carrying narcotic, which gave the officers probable cause for making the stop.

In determining whether or not the subject is being detained and arrested, US vs. Hammock, 860 F. 2d 390 (11th Cir. 1988), states that: "These circumstances include the blocking of an individual's path or the impeding of his progress; the retention of a ticket or piece of identification; an officer's statement that the individual is the subject of an investigation, or that a truly innocent person would cooperate with the law enforcement officer; the display of weapons; the number of officers present and their demeanor; the length of the detention; and the extent to which the officers physically restrained the individual". Am Jur contains a practice guide for probable cause, and reads as follows: "The officer must articulate something more than an inchoate and un particularized suspicion or "hunch"; instead, the Fourth Amendment requires some minimal level of objective justification for a police officer to make such a stop. However, that level of suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and is less demanding than the level for probable cause; there must only be a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found for a stop and frisk procedure to be implemented". All of these examples show that the officer illegally detained Ms. Wine, and therefore, the content of the search should be considered invalid. Ms. Wine should therefore try a suppression motion to get the evidence dismissed.

If that somehow fails, Ms. Wine will have to follow Mr. Johnnie Walker's actions to comply with the FAA. All three of these cases demonstrate how dealing with alcohol can cause trouble not only immediately, but also for careers in the future. It is not wise for minors to mess with alcohol, especially for pilots, because of the consequences.