o1st issue = concept of preemption (Express, Field, Conflict)
§Express (statutory) – congress will say something like “no state shall regulate the rates, routes, or services of airlines”
oPresumption against preemption in areas traditionally state regulated
oFederal Aviation Act (FAA) does NOT provide for criminal penalties for crew members operating an aircraft under the influence
argued federal law preempts the state law and should look to see what
federal law says you can do against these pilots (and there was nothing
so they should be not guilty)
oCOURT REJECTED D’S argument
§HOLDING: NO PREEMPTION HERE
oConstitutional challenges made by D
§Vague? “under the influence” and “operate” undefined
§Section 860.13 – know this statute à Incorporation Challenge
·This is the FL statute where the appeal sort of came from
any prosecution charging careless or reckless operation of aircraft in
violation of this section…have to consider as prescribed….what?
§14 CFR §1.1 (1997)
respect to aircracft, means use cause to use or authorize to use
aircraft, for the purpose…of air navigation including the piloting of
§14 CFR §91.17(a)
·Prohibition: “eight hours from bottle to throttle
against acting as crewmember with blood alcohol level of 0.04% or
higher did NOT exist in 1983, the year the FLa. Statute §860.13(2) was (re)enacted.
oCaptain Chronic – preflight work is operation, etc…
oCourt here said they could be tried under the FL statute…
oTSA smells alcohol on breath of pilots as they walk through screening
oTSA notifies MDPD
goes to plane after it had left terminal and check pilots, who then
find out that both pilots are above Florida’s legal limit (.08).
challenged a judgment of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County
(Florida) finding him guilty with a codefendant of operating an aircraft
while intoxicated or in a careless or reckless manner, in violation of
Fla. Stat. § 860.13 (2002).
appeals court found that as applied to defendant, who attempted to
pilot a commercial aircraft with an estimated blood alcohol level of
between .113 and .145 at the time defendant was performing preflight
checks on board the aircraft, Fla. Stat. § 860.13 was not
unconstitutionally vague, and defendant lacked standing to facially
attack the statute on vagueness grounds.
conduct was clearly prohibited by the statute and he could not
seriously contend that he was not on notice that his conduct was illegal
based on the statute's failure to define "under the influence."
(1) the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant did operate the aircraft (an essential element of the crime
charged); (2) the State's case was premised on whether defendant
violated the statute by taking control of the aircraft and performing
the preflight functions while under the influence of alcohol; and (3)
there was no evidence of any mechanical or other problem which rendered
the aircraft incapable of being operated without substantial mechanical
repairs, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to
instruct on inoperability.
·Federal and state’s coexist (speed limit on I-95->US1)
·Federal and state law cant meet
oPilots claiming state cant sue them under state law, must be federal bc of FAA
§However, FAA does not provide or criminal penalties for crew members operating an aircraft under the influence