Update on SWA f/o arrested for intoxication.

[BLUE BAYOU]

Under the scrutiny we're under now as we pass through security, why would anyone on earth jeopardize their future career and family livelyhood on alcohol? He made a choice, a wrong one, and now he'll have to endure the consequences. Sometimes in life, you don't get a second chance... We know the history of these infractions and the resulting ramifications. I wouldn't want my kids driven to school by a driver that's impaired nor my family flown by idiots who can't control their habits either.

 

[FN FAL]

Second chance my a$$. Alcoholism or not, this guy made a choice to show up to work under the influence. Whether he blew a .039 or a .39 is just semantics. The fact that he blew anything at all shows a serious lack of character and judgment especially when you consider the responsibility we as professional airline pilots are charged with. Would you seriously get a warm fuzzy knowing you just put your family on an airplane with somebody who got a second chance for something like this? And I used to wonder why the rest of the world looks at Americans as being "soft".

I think if second chances was tied to mandatory pre-hire and routine polygraph or aural truth testing for 121 captains, you'd be singing a different tune.

 

[AA717driver]

I hope all of you who are so judgemental will get the opportunity to be convicted in the court of public opinion and face the spectre of having YOUR livelihood stripped away from YOU at some point.

Oh, to be perfect... TC

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Sometimes in life, you don't get a second chance...

True, dat !!! But in this case, this guy will get that second chance. You and I both know that the medical community and the FAA see alcoholism as a disease...not a judgement issue.

Tejas

 

[ultrarunner]

...Remember, he blew a .039 an HOUR AFTER he was detained.

What's the point in a breathalyzer if it's not done on the spot?

 

[FN FAL]

What's the point in a breathalyzer if it's not done on the spot?

Exactly, dats what dis judge sez...

Va. Drunken Driving Law Challenged in Fairfax Court
Prosecutors Argue Statute Isn't Unconstitutional


[SIZE=-1]By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 28, 2005; B08

[/SIZE]
Fairfax County prosecutors yesterday challenged a lower-court judge's belief that the state's drunken driving law is unconstitutional, arguing that the statute does not put motorists in the position of having to disprove intoxication.

The arguments came in two DWI cases as defense attorneys -- who agree with General District Court Judge Ian M. O'Flaherty's opinion that the law is unconstitutional -- asked a Circuit Court judge to dismiss the charges. Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Robert W. Wooldridge Jr. set both cases for trial in December and said he would issue his rulings before then.

Whichever way Wooldridge rules, the cases are almost certainly headed for the Virginia Supreme Court -- and a ruling on the legality of the state's laws on driving while intoxicated.

Both DWI cases originated in the lower court, where O'Flaherty had made it clear in other cases that he believed the state's DWI laws made some unconstitutional presumptions. The law states that drivers with a blood alcohol level of .08 are presumed to have been drunk at the time of the alleged offense.

Although he has relied on the law to convict drunk drivers for many years, the judge also has a problem with presuming that a person's blood alcohol level 90 minutes or more after the arrest, when most breath tests are given, is the same as it was at the time of the arrest. The law says both presumptions are "rebuttable," meaning defendants can offer their own evidence to contest police evidence.

But O'Flaherty, citing a 1985 Supreme Court ruling, said requiring a defendant to do anything in his own defense violates the Fifth Amendment. Prosecutors are required to prove criminal cases beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant is not required to do anything, the judge said. Twice, he has declared the state law unconstitutional.

Virginia prosecutors may not appeal constitutional rulings, or anything else, from General District Court. And it was only a pair of state constitution changes, approved by voters more than a decade ago, that allowed prosecutors to appeal from circuit courts, and then only on constitutional and evidentiary issues.

So Fairfax prosecutors began asking O'Flaherty to dismiss drunken driving cases that landed in his courtroom. There are 10 General District Court judges in Fairfax, and as many as five are hearing randomly assigned traffic cases any one morning. When O'Flaherty dismissed a case, prosecutors then indicted the defendant in Circuit Court, where either side could appeal.

This month, O'Flaherty began refusing to dismiss cases for possible indictment, saying he had done so enough times for appeal purposes. He then began finding some defendants not guilty, in part by refusing to presume that they were drunk based on their blood alcohol test.

Corinne J. Magee, representing Edward Q. Yap in one of the cases before Wooldridge yesterday, said a law telling a judge or jury to presume someone was drunk, based solely on their blood alcohol level, "puts the onus on the defendant to disprove his own intoxication." She said such a defense "likely will not be found sufficient."

Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Casey M. Lingan said the law's presumption of drunkenness does not shift the burden to a defendant but merely allows "a permissible inference that's based on loads and loads of scientific study." He said the presumption "takes away the necessity of having an expert hauled into court every time a misdemeanor [drunken driving] case is held."

Todd F. Sanders, representing the second defendant, Gonzalo Padilla, said: "This is not an inference. It's a presumption under the statute and the way that every judge in this circuit interprets it." He said defendants could combat the blood alcohol presumption only by calling their own experts to testify.

Lingan also argued in a brief that the Supreme Court case cited by O'Flaherty, Francis v. Franklin , dealt with the intent of a murder defendant and an instruction that told jurors to presume that a suspect had intent to kill if he was "of sound mind." Lingan said "intoxication presumptions are based on scientific research. . . . Thus the presumptions of intoxication are inherently reliable as opposed to subjective like those in" the Francis case.

Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Kathryn S. Swart, who has argued so vigorously with O'Flaherty that he threatened her with jail, said defense attorneys can rebut the presumption by cross-examining police and attacking other prosecution evidence.

In a brief, Swart wrote that the Constitution "does not prohibit the use of presumptions or inferences as procedural devices to shift to the accused the burden of producing some evidence contesting the otherwise presumed or inferred fact."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company​

 

[Oh-ryan]

I hope all of you who are so judgemental will get the opportunity to be convicted in the court of public opinion and face the spectre of having YOUR livelihood stripped away from YOU at some point.

Oh, to be perfect... TC

Court of public opinion? I think blowing .039 twice is a fact and not an opinion. You're right that at any minute any one of us could be raked across the coals whether it be justified or not. But this guy exercised poor judgement and has no one to blame but himself.

If you will excuse me now, I have to go Windex the walls of my glass house.

 

[Mookie]

He was at Brewvies!!!! For those of you that don't know this place....

1. Beer(good beer for utah)
2. Pizza...good pizza
3. First run movies (saw Old school there two years ago).
4. Smokin' hot utahnians behind the bar.

happiest place on earth!!! or at least in SLC.

Well done my friend...well done.

 

[Sluggo_63]

See that is EXACTLY the kind of response I expected from some folks, the same old lack of character, I am an AIRLINE pilot, judgment bs. Look if you know the stove is hot and it has burned you a million times in the past but you still cannot help yourself to keep from pressing your hand down on top of it a problem exists. Character has nothing to do with it, he made a huge mistake and thanks to some people with compassion there exists an avenue to remedy that mistake and NEVER make it again. I'll tell you another secret slick, American Airlines will not fire anyone for an Alcohol related incident as long as they successfully complete the HIMS program, relapse is almost Nil and physicians and surgeons have copied the model.

My problem with your reasoning is that 99% of alcoholics know they have an alcohol problem, even if they're in denial. If that's the case, an airlne pilot should self identify, and get him/herself enrolled in HIMS and get sober. We know these programs are available. Tell someone that you can't help yourself from "touching the hot stove." (which, by the way, is a poor analogy because burning yourself isn't the same as putting 120+ people at risk)

If you're not an alcoholic and you show up to fly drunk, shame on you...call in sick.
If you are an alcoholic and you haven't enrolled in a program to clean up, and you show up drunk, shame on you again. It's all on you.
Anything else is just another attempt to shirk blame from the "offender" to the "system."

P.S. My comments have nothing to do with the case that started this thread. I am not implying guilt or innocence of that particular pilot.

 

[FN FAL]

My problem...

If you're not an alcoholic and you show up to fly drunk.

Your problem, is that you don't know the definition of "drunk", nor do you know the difference betwixt "drunk", "impaired", "problem drinker" and "alcoholic".