Idiot Sherriff Arrests 70 Year Old Glider Pilot......For Just Flying

[Bill Greenwood]

Matt, you and I seem to have the same facts, that is that the information on "loiter" came from the SSA website,or the article by SSA, and not directly from the FAA. Our interpretation is different, you seem to believe that this is equivalent to the FAA saying the same thing, and I don't agree.

This case seems to be done and not going to court after the sheriff and local court buffaloed the glider pilot.
But if it did go to court, the prosecutor might have an easy time before a local jury to the effect:
"Folks, this man recklessly flew a airplane over our power plant and homes, without a flight plan on file anywhere, and without being in contact with an air traffic control facility.
And not only that, but he flew very low and without even an engine, with nothing tangible to hold him aloft and he might at any time crash into the power plant or homes below."

The jury is not going to be pilots or EAA members, it is going to be the housewives and retired people of the local area. This is Nascar and tobacco country in a red state, and that is likely the type of people who would be jurors.

And who is going to speak for the glider pilot? Is the FAA going to come down and say that the pilot did nothing wrong? Not likely. And how much weight do you think the SAA witness is going to carry with a jury if indeed the SSA even was willing to get involved, which I have doubts about ?
Perhaps you know of a number of cases where the FAA testified on behalf of a pilot against law enforcement, and if so I'd like to hear of them. I know of a case where the FAA went out of their way for 5 years or so to try to convict an American war hero and renown expert airshow pilot, Bob Hoover and the lack of due process and any semblance of fairness would make an Iranian court blush.

I personally know of a case where the pilot was accused by lawyers for the other side of making a bad and dangerous landing, ie too long and too fast. The pilot would likely have been in trouble if not for one thing, unbeknowst to those lawyers there were photos from a local photographer showing the landing exactly on the aim spot in the middle of the vasi lights.

I don't think it is as cut and dried, (no problem) as you make it out or would like it to be.

[Bob Meder]

What's funny in the Omaha area is when we're getting flight following from the TRACON, either entering or leaving the Class C airspace up near OPPD's Fort Calhoun power plant. ATC asks us to go left or right well clear of the plant as we motor by. One time, for the tape recorder, I brought up the whole "but we're not loitering" thing and the controller said "Yeah, but we don't want to deal with the phone calls from those guys..."

Meantime, I shoot ILS' down to within a couple hundred feet of the airbase that is STRATCOMM's HQ and home of the E4 command post aircraft...

[pacerpilot]

A few months back sheriffs deputies (yes plural) descended upon Livingston Muni-00R in an effort to find the aircraft that was flying low over the Lake Livingston dam. They had convinced themselves this was a huge violation of some kind of national security rule-somewhere, somehow. After we calmed them down-cops get very excited if they think they can arrest sombody-we began to explain that no laws were broken. We chuckled a bit at there lack of knowledge and explained that flight over the dam is completely acceptable. We tried to get them to call the FAA or FBI but they wouldn't-at this point I'm pretty sure they were worried about embarrasment. Oh well, the world we live in.

[WLIU]

The last post is a reasonable outcome.

I believe that Bill misses the point of the Federal law. A good lawyer will say that the Sheriff was doing OK up until he fabricated the charge and made the arrest. At that point the law and Supreme Court precedent said that the Sheriff crossed the line and having admitted that he fabricated a reason to imprison the pilot, the only question for the jury to decide is the amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded. This action will take place in Federal court, not state court. Please Google the topic if you think that this logic is not correct. Most folks are far too willing to give in to the abuse of their rights.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS


Update - I just looked at the AOPA web page and they report that the Sheriff is getting apologetic about the incident. I suspect that he is realizing how much liability he walked into.

[flyrite]

Wow , I read of happenings like this & I am ALMOST motivated to get on my "Soap Box" & expound upon the "root causes" for why this "Goofy Sheriff" even for a minute though he had the authority to do what he did .....And then I remember .....People don't want to hear what the "Root" of all these kinds of abuses stem from .

And sure as you start pointing out the obvious , Someones "Ox will be gored" & we will get into the politics of it all & the "Exceptions will gripe about the majority rules" & the next thing you know we will be talking about what would REALLY eliminate these kinds of abuses & well ...Crap...We won't be talking Aviation anymore....or will we ?



OH WAIT .....DID I JUST TYPE ALL THAT OUT LOUD..........Oppps.......sorry Guys, my "Soap Box" sometimes has a mind of it's own .

[Floatsflyer]

I believe that Bill misses the point of the Federal law. A good lawyer will say that the Sheriff was doing OK up until he fabricated the charge and made the arrest. At that point the law and Supreme Court precedent said that the Sheriff crossed the line and having admitted that he fabricated a reason to imprison the pilot, the only question for the jury to decide is the amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded. This action will take place in Federal court, not state court. Please Google the topic if you think that this logic is not correct. Most folks are far too willing to give in to the abuse of their rights.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS


Update - I just looked at the AOPA web page and they report that the Sheriff is getting apologetic about the incident. I suspect that he is realizing how much liability he walked into.

Wes, you sound like you could be a Lawyer(btw, so good to hear factual info on this forum, rather than some people speaking through their a**es) so, if you are, I'd like to ask if there are legal grounds for Mr. Fleming to initiate an action against the Sheriff and/or County despite the fact that he apparently waived his right to do so? Thanks.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Just wondering why everyone is jumping on the local sheriff while giving the power plant security guys, who initiated the whole incident, and SHOULD have known the rules governing flights over their facility, a pass.

[Floatsflyer]

Just wondering why everyone is jumping on the local sheriff while giving the power plant security guys, who initiated the whole incident, and SHOULD have known the rules governing flights over their facility, a pass.

Because all law enforcement has a legal and moral duty to know the laws and enforce them properly...NOT abuse their power and authority in the absense of not knowing, I.E. not making it up as they go along!

[nrpetersen]

Would be be more appropriate for the pilot (and the rest of us) to simply state that "we are operate strictly under FAA rules up here and to suggest that the law enforcement people ask the FAA what we should do?"

[Bill Greenwood]

Wes, I am not a lawyer,but my Son Charles is, and he is an assistant district attorney, and I am very proud of him.
I do follow some legal and court cases as sort of a hobby and do know of some cases, both civil and criminal. I have been to small claims court 4 times and did pretty well , won 3 and tied 1. One of these cases I won was for $2200 when the repair shop put the wrong part on my plane and it failed shortly.
What I have said is just my opinion, but it is to some extent based on known cases. You can research the fatal accident of the son and husband of gov.Carahan of Mo. and the finding BY A JURY, that went against the facts.
Next the finding, BY A JURY, of partial responsibility against Howard Pardue, who as the flight leader was only sitting still on the runway when a following pilot began his takeoff roll, without a clear path, and ran into Howard from the rear. ALL of the responsibility was and should have been on the following pilot, but the jury had some sympathy for the injured pilot and found, at least partially against the facts. I have flown formation takeoffs,ESPECIALLY IN TAILWHEEL PLANES, as you may well have also and the following pilot, should never start his takeoff until the lead pilot is off the ground, no ifs ands and buts.

You say this case would be in federal court, and I don't know about this but I am talking not about the country criminal case against the pilot which he probably could win, and which has been dropped. I an talking about a claim for civil damages by the glider pilot against the sheriff and the county.

Legal cases are often won on two ways, first the judge excluding some of the testimony and evidence from even being heard and considered. The other way is jury selection. Take a look at the O J case. Once the jury was comprised of people hostile to the L A police and favorable to O J, the outcome was preordained despite all the blood evidence or abundance of facts for his guilt. Nothing was going to get 12 of those jurors to vote against OJ. In the civil case that O J lost and the next criminal case the juror makeup was different, and so was the result.

I don't think we know for sure about this sheriff and if he is popular with the local people or not, or even if the glider pilot might have support in the local area.

But don't overlook how hard it is to get a jury to vote against local law enforcement. Growing up in Texas, I know of at least 3 cases where Houston police murdered people (twice shot unarmed young men,and once threw handcuffed prisoners in the river to drown) and all were acquitted by juries. And it took decades before any southern jury would convict cops or sheriffs of KKK type crimes.

I wish the glider pilot would hire an attorney, a very good one, and file a civil suit, but many people will just skip the expense and effort.