Over zealous LEA jails 70yo glider pilot over non-existent airspace violation.

[simon]

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130110secret-no-fly-zone.html?CMP=ADV:1

- On the return leg from a cross country soaring trip, a 70 year old pilot passes once over a nuclear plant at 1500' MSL. (Pilot was not in breach of any FAA regulation.)
- Law enforcement officers including Homeland Security and the FBI turn up at a nearby airport.
- FBO operator told by LEA that aircraft should be shot down.
- UNICOM operator tells pilot to land immediately.
- Pilot cuts flight short, follows instructions and lands. Met on the ground by LEA and at least 12 LEA vehicles.
- Pilot arrested, handcuffed and thrown in jail overnight. Told: "flying in a no fly zone" (No such thing).
- Pilot not allowed to call anyone to tell them where he was. Wife files overdue aircraft report.
- Pilot later charged with "Breach of Peace".
- A month later, charges were dismissed in exchange for agreeing not to sue the county.

Another example of an over the top shakedown of a pilot who wasn't breaking any law (Remember the arrest of John & Martha King?).

Now I am aware there are are plenty of LEA's that read this forum, but where is the commonsense and civility in this behavior? They have the glider on the ground and the 70 year old. Doesn't the department of Homeland Security, the FBI or the local LEA have anyone to call at the FAA? You would think after 9/11 they would. Handcuffing and throwing an old guy in jail without even allowing him to call his wife to tell her he hadn't gone missing just stinks.

[rframe]

I believe there was also a quote from one of the deputies saying something about "shooting him down".

Frankly, I cannot believe this guy hasn't sued the snot out of everyone involved.

[JeffDG]

I believe there was also a quote from one of the deputies saying something about "shooting him down".

Frankly, I cannot believe this guy hasn't sued the snot out of everyone involved.

Well, the county mounties made him sign away his right to sue in exchange for dropping the "breach of peace" charges.

[rframe]

Well, the county mounties made him sign away his right to sue in exchange for dropping the "breach of peace" charges.

Yeah, I guess what I meant was that I cannot believe any lawyer worth a dime would've went along with that.

[PHall]

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130110secret-no-fly-zone.html?CMP=ADV:1

- On the return leg from a cross country soaring trip, a 70 year old pilot passes once over a nuclear plant at 1500' MSL. (Pilot was not in breach of any FAA regulation.)
- Law enforcement officers including Homeland Security and the FBI turn up at a nearby airport.
- FBO operator told by LEA that aircraft should be shot down.
- UNICOM operator tells pilot to land immediately.
- Pilot cuts flight short, follows instructions and lands. Met on the ground by LEA and at least 12 LEA vehicles.
- Pilot arrested, handcuffed and thrown in jail overnight. Told: "flying in a no fly zone" (No such thing).
- Pilot not allowed to call anyone to tell them where he was. Wife files overdue aircraft report.
- Pilot later charged with "Breach of Peace".
- A month later, charges were dismissed in exchange for agreeing not to sue the county.

Another example of an over the top shakedown of a pilot who wasn't breaking any law (Remember the arrest of John & Martha King?).

Now I am aware there are are plenty of LEA's that read this forum, but where is the commonsense and civility in this behavior? They have the glider on the ground and the 70 year old. Doesn't the department of Homeland Security, the FBI or the local LEA have anyone to call at the FAA? You would think after 9/11 they would. Handcuffing and throwing an old guy in jail without even allowing him to call his wife to tell her he hadn't gone missing just stinks.

Well, how was our 70 year old pilot behaving?  If he was being non-coopertive then a little time by himself to cool down might have been called for.
And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.

We're not getting the whole story here...

[simon]

Well, how was our 70 year old pilot behaving?  If he was being non-coopertive then a little time by himself to cool down might have been called for.

Nobody has suggested that he was being non-cooperative.

And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.

The chart says "power plant". There are no other annotations.

[Critical AOA]

The cops clearly exceeded their authority in this case.  They lacked understanding of the regulations and laws regarding aviation and where aircraft can operate and went off halfcocked.  They demanded that the pilot land which is out of their legal authority to do.  They were wrong on so many counts.  I wonder if they will be held accountable for their actions.

I am not certain that the agreement not to sue will hold up in court.

[JeffDG]

And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.

Really?

Here they don't have a restricted area over the Y-12 "National Security Complex" where they store weapons, let alone over power plants.

[Brad]

Darlington has always been overzealous when it comes to the HB Robinson plant.

One of my co-workers when I used to dispatch for SCHP up in that area of SC, who also works part-time for Darlington County 911, said that the nuke plant is apparently required to call LE whenever an aircraft flies over the plant, and the 911 office has a standard response plan. There are even heavy metal partitions in the 911 office that drop down to seal the room if the nuke plant calls them with a certain level of alert. The nuke plant would also call 911 and us (HP) regularly to advise they were doing live-fire drills, in case we got reports of gunfire near the plant.

[JeffDG]

The chart says "power plant". There are no other annotations.

BTW, here's the sectional for the area in question:
http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.40192419173013,-80.15643310906114&chart=301&zoom=1

I don't even see a "Power Plant", just a couple of obstructions.  No MOA, R, P or even NSA in the area.

[Critical AOA]

The article stated as much:

On the Charlotte sectional chart, the nuclear power plant is marked with nothing more than a group obstruction symbol.

[a2capt]

And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.
We're not getting the whole story here...

Really? I've never, in flying since 1996, seen a power plant or similar structure marked off as a any kind of airspace.

So, lets expand a little on your "West Coast" area..

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station: 45M West of Phoenix VFR Chart says "Power Plant"
No Restricted Area. There's a wilderness area to the south and north. In fact, the Power Plant is right smack on Victor 16.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station: Northern San Diego County Coast. The VFR Chart calls this on by name, "San Onofre Power Plant", and this one right next to a Victor Airway, V-23 to be exact. Yes, it depicted as being within R-2503A & D airspace, however that airspace is not for the nuclear gods, it's the US Marines. R2503A is active 0600-2400 to 2000 MSL. R2503D is intermittent with at least a 24 hour advance NOTAM. So for 6 hours of the day you can fly all around the thing. Otherwise for all intents, it's 2,000 AGL when passing through that area. To make matters worse, it's locally not even recognized within a mile of the freeway, unless they put out a NOTAM. But it's not charted that way, caveat emptor.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant: West Southwest of San Luis Obispo, it's not even depicted on the chart -at all- to be seen. Surrounded by some MOA's. Well, that's to be expected. It's just north of Vandenberg AFB. Similarly to the other nuclear plants so far, it's got an airplane magnet nearby, (VOR), and within typical accepted width of an airway (V-27) for obstacle clearance purposes.

Humboldt Bay, Decommissioned, but still an actively being dismantled nuclear site with with fuel rods in proximity. Other than the Class E airspace difference, it's located within an active airport pattern even.  Oh, and Victor 27 for all intents, goes right over it. That's TWO for Victor 27 so far!

Rancho Seco, Decommissioned, located south east of Sacramento, near Elk Grove, it's been largely returned to public use, though the Cooling Towers still stand, the nuclear site is all but reduced to an 11 acre area under NRC control, that still stores dry cask fuel rods. Depicted on the chart as "cooling towers".

Columbia Generating Station, located in central Washington State, it's depiction on the chart is ambiguous at best. There is a "plant" denoted along the river bank, however the actual facility is itself, not located there. This one is also located for all intents, on a Victor Airway, V-187, and other than the varied floor of the Class E airspace, there's nothing here.

That's just a few .. nope. Sorry. No restricted areas. If the nuclear plants are not 'protected', I'm pretty sure the hydro powered sites are not either. For grins, lets look at Hoover Dam. I see that it's under a portion of KLAS Class Bravo, but at 8,000 to 9,000 MSL, with the structure itself below 1,800 MSL, and the airspace to the east drops down to 6,500 MSL, still plenty of space to buzz around up there.

Of course, there are standard FAA restrictions on altitude. 1,000 AGL from the "congested area", etc. That "dome" of influence that surrounds stuff. With all that in mind, while the nuclear power plants don't have no fly zones, the Disney company has managed to get 3,000 AGL TFR's over their parks. That hasn't stopped me from flying over them directly however, as ATC many times has directed a course right over it, at less than the prescribed altitude. In fact, the thing is right to the south of .. a Victor Airway.

[Flying Pig]

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130110secret-no-fly-zone.html?CMP=ADV:1
Another example of an over the top shakedown of a pilot who wasn't breaking any law (Remember the arrest of John & Martha King?).

Now I am aware there are are plenty of LEA's that read this forum, but where is the commonsense and civility in this behavior?

Stick to the facts.   John and Martha were never arrested.  They were flying an airplane the had a tail number that was listed as stolen.  Believe it or not, nobody in the LE community has any idea who John and Martha are nor do they probably care.  It took a very brief time frame to clear up the situation and they were sent on their way.  The cops did exactly as they were trained.  As a 16 year cop, LE pilot, former CAP pilot, I will tell you there was nothing wrong with the way John and Martha were handled.   No different than how a stolen car is dealt with on the street.  My area recently had an airplane stolen by a parolee, who then crashed not to far from the airport I work at.  That plane was reported stolen as well.  But because it was John and Martha, the cops should have known who they were?  The FAA failed to update their database when they reissued the tail number.  Hardly the fault of the LE agency that gets notified by the FAA that a stolen airplane is inbound for landing. 

As far as the issue being discussed about the pilot and the power plant.  Him signing any form has nothing to do with being able to sue.  he can still sue all he wants.  If the story is as it reads, he should.  You comment that you know LEOs read this site and you want to know where the common sense and civility is?  So you are assuming that because we wear a badge that we are all for cops making stuff up and tossing people in jail and that we all support each other?

[Critical AOA]

You are correct, no one in their right mind thinks that everyone should know who the Kings are. 

You are also correct in that they were not arrested. 

They were merely held at gunpoint, handcuffed and detained separately in two different police cars.   I guess that is just a fine and dandy way to treat two citizens who had done nothing wrong. 

[Brad]

You are correct, no one in their right mind thinks that everyone should know who the Kings are. 

You are also correct in that they were not arrested. 

They were merely held at gunpoint, handcuffed and detained separately in two different police cars.   I guess that is just a fine and dandy way to treat two citizens who had done nothing wrong.

Cops act on the fact at hand. Sounds to me like the agency that entered the aircraft as stolen in NCIC didn't receive the information that the tail number had been reassigned or they forgot to cancel out the record. Couple that with a record that wasn't quality checked and a dispatcher who's never seen a stolen aircraft record, (I think I've seen a BOLO for 1 on the back of a trailer in my course of 5 years and two different agencies in 3 jurisdictions as a dispatcher) that could potentially result in a misread of the alert.

Whatever happened, occured and the agency reacted appropriately. Until they were able to determine further, they were acting on the assumption that the aircraft was stolen, which is why the Kings were met by law enforcement in the way they were. Once the confusion was resolved, they were released.

It's a non-issue, plain and simple.

[simon]

Those unfamiliar with the King incident (I don't care to mince words on whether this was an arrest or a detainment - David Vandenbroeck summed it up well) can read their account here:

http://johnandmartha.kingschools.com/2010/08/31/our-gunpoint-at-the-airport-ordeal/

Where people with the mindset of Flying Pig and I will probably never see eye to eye on is the point the King's made towards the end of the article: "One thing that still bothers me about this case is that the Santa Barbara Police Department is still treating this case as if it were no big deal. I guess it isn't a big deal if you are on the aiming end of the gun."

Notice as well their closing remark and prediction: "We just feel that drawing guns on people is dangerous business—not to be done unless it is absolutely necessary. And it will continue to happen to other pilots unless the system is changed."

[Eclipse]

Define "necessary". (Hindsight is awesome).

Beyond that, seriously, why is this even news (for either story).

[Buzz]

Well, how was our 70 year old pilot behaving?  If he was being non-coopertive then a little time by himself to cool down might have been called for.
And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.

Where in the law do you find anything to give you the idea that local law enforcement agencies have any legal authority to enforce FAA regulations . . ?

[simon]

Define "necessary". (Hindsight is awesome).

Regardless of what I think is necessary, clearly it is going to end up being whatever LE think is appropriate in the situation. I just don't think Martha King (In the attached photo, seen exiting the Cessna 172 at gunpoint) looks like she is going to pull a Machete granny move. In the King case, the Santa Barbara Chief of Police apologized, most likely in no small part due to the King's connections. But in the case of the glider pilot Robin Fleming (Photo also attached - another dangerous looking guy armed with - a GLIDER), the county played hardball with the charges unless HE walked away. Not sure how many of us would feel like doing that. Maybe he was just a guy that wanted to put it behind him and get on with life. We may never know. But was over a dozen LE vehicles an appropriate level of resources? I can't believe THAT much was necessary.

Beyond that, seriously, why is this even news (for either story).

Well that is of course subjective, but I will give it a shot. Firstly it is aviation news and the kind of news that IMHO does raise a few eyebrows in the aviation community. Secondly because it shows pilots they need to be careful. Even if they are technically not breaking the law, to watch out for LEOs that might think they are and to be aware of how something seemingly innocuous can turn out to be quite something else. Finally, in the hope that events like this, if widely circulated, might lead to some changes. After all, the last thing anyone wants is for an ignorant LEO to start shooting at a plane. The Kings went to work to make changes. AOPA handled Fleming's case. The best thing that could come out of is a general consensus amongst LEOs that if they aren't sure of what pilots can and can't do, to call the FAA. You'd think after 911 that they might have a phone number.

[Eclipse]

Everything raises eyebrows in the aviation community.

[PA Guy]

Where people with the mindset of Flying Pig and I will probably never see eye to eye on is the point the King's made towards the end of the article: "One thing that still bothers me about this case is that the Santa Barbara Police Department is still treating this case as if it were no big deal. I guess it isn't a big deal if you are on the aiming end of the gun."

Notice as well their closing remark and prediction: "We just feel that drawing guns on people is dangerous business—not to be done unless it is absolutely necessary. And it will continue to happen to other pilots unless the system is changed."

You can add me to your list along with Flying Pig. Shouldn't LEOs have a reasonable expectation of going home at the end of their shift? If it had in fact been a stolen plane and the occupants came out shooting then would it meet your criteria for "absolutely necessary"? Traffic, or in this case aircraft, stops are very dangerous to officer safety. The officer had no way of knowing this wasn't a stolen aircraft. So, when is it "absolutely necessary" to draw a weapon, when you are laying there bleeding?

[abdsp51]

You can be detained for a period of time and restrained if necessary for officer and suspect safety.  And removing someone from a stolen vehicle (car, boat, aircraft) at gunpoint is not excessive and sound tactics that have been employed by LE for decades.  Any one can and have posed a threat to LE regardless of age (use common sense).  And there is a huge difference between being detained and arrested.   

[Flying Pig]

By the way, the Kings didnt set out to change anything in the way LE handles their tactics. Sorry, but John and Martha dont carry any weight in the tactical arena. Per my contacts at SBPD, this was done and over with after the apology.  A couple of the Narcs Ive talked to were not even aware of it.  Dealing with innocent people, sorting out the details and sending them on their way will always be part of police work.  Ive dealt with so many stolen cars being driven by the owners I cant even count. Owner reports car stolen and then finds it on their own and they recover it with out telling the cops!  Yes, happens a lot.  Find their stolen car and call dispatch but then dont wait for the cop to come out and do the paperwork that authorizes the records people to remove it from the system.  A couple days later they are all happy cruising to work and a cop sees the car, runs the plate or stops it for something else and it comes back stolen. Pretty common. And people arent out getting shot up by crazy cops.  Its funny, police work is one of the areas where everyone is an expert on how it needs to be done except the guys who do it everyday.

[SarDragon]

I bought a used '67 Barracuda in 1971. I was driving it over to a bud's house to show off my new ride. On the way, not once, but twice, I got stopped on suspicion of a stolen car. Seems that an almost identical car had been stolen the day before, and they thought mine was it. I exited the car at gunpoint, and did the hands on the roof thing until they could verify the plate and paperwork. Once things were cleared up, they apologized, and went on their way. The second stop was easier and quicker, since I knew what to expect.

Not fun at the time, but a semi-kool story 40 years later.

[stillamarine]

Sorry, I have to chime in. As an LEO that works in a city that has a high number of stolen vehicles (we were even on Baitcar, I will sign autographs after this post) I don't care what anyone says. If something comes back as stolen, you get the high risk stop. Their little blog post mentioned the fact about if they wanted to run they'd just fly away. I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is you getting out of the plane and killing me. People have mentioned that there is no need for guns to be drawn, just talk to the pilot/occupants. I'm sorry it don't work like that. Action is faster than reaction. That is beat into our head in the academy and on the streets. You may have nothing in your hands and have a gun in the small of your back. If I have my weapon in a holster, you can draw and shoot faster than I can. No matter how much I train. On traffic stops at night my gun is drawn until after the first contact, but you'll never know. Until I know the situation is safe you are a potential threat. Hate me for it all you want. I'm going home at night. As for the Chief of Police making a formal apology that's on him. As for me, the best you'll get out of me is a simple "Hey sorry about that, FAA screwed up but I'm just doing my job."

[rframe]

Back on topic....

A pilot was flying legally, in non-restricted airspace, then told he was going to be "shot down" and was then detained and denied his phone call.

This is acceptable, why again?

[JeffDG]

Back on topic....

A pilot was flying legally, in non-restricted airspace, then told he was going to be "shot down" and was then detained and denied his phone call.

This is acceptable, why again?

The glider pilot was not "detained".  He was arrested, then forced to waive his right to sue in order to get charges dropped.

[Flying Pig]

Back on topic....

A pilot was flying legally, in non-restricted airspace, then told he was going to be "shot down" and was then detained and denied his phone call.

This is acceptable, why again?

Im still searching around looking for anywhere that somebody said it was acceptable.  Im still scratching my head on this one though.  Something doesnt add up with the story.  If it is as botched up as the AOPA article makes it sound, then he wont have ANY trouble suing regardless of what form he signed.

[Devil Doc]

Bait Car? I love that show!! Just love how the people make up excuses, when they know they are caught. Birmingham Police Bait Car I Assume? Season 4 Aired in Late 2011?

[stillamarine]

Yup. I was on it a couple times. Also on the first 48 although I tried to stay out of it until the last month they were here I was talking to a couple detectives about a possible suspect and I glance over and he's zoomed in on me. Doh!

[Flying Pig]

Cops has been to my area a few times.  I've managed to avoid them somehow. 

[Ned]

Interesting.

The link posted by the OP goes to the AOPA page that has an article and a video blog posting.

The first observation is that AOPA seems to be using the story to market their legal defense plan for private pilots.  IOW, they have a financial motive to make the story seem as dramatic as possible and for it to be spread across the net as far as possible.  MY Google-fu powers were weak this morning, and I was unable to find any independent information sources concerning the story.  The AOPA could be 100% correct, but anytime someone publishes a dramatic story and seeks to profit from it, we should carefully consider their credibility.

The second observation is that apparently the FAA acted appropriately throughout.  They told everyone who asked that there did not appear to be a violation of law or FAR, and were not involved in any requests that the pilot land.

Third, according the article, it appears that the problem was created when the power plant security people contacted local law enforcement complaining about the glider and told LE (incorrectly) that it was a violation of law for the aircraft to overfly the plant.  The power plant security folks then disengaged themselves from the situation.

So, if you are a local LE agency and a nuclear power plant security crew calls and tells you about an "unlawful" security threat, I think 99.9% of the LEAs in the country would at least begin to crank up a response.

Now, having been a cop for a small agency I can tell you that most smaller agencies are pretty unfamiliar with federal law, especially something like aviation law.  They just don't come across it often enough to get familiar with it, and tend to -- at least initially -- go with "what sounds reasonable".

And it is not like a deputy sheriff can pull over and start leafing through the FARs to double-check when the call appears to be urgent. 

But if I were the head of an agency that had responsibility for a nuclear power plant, I would have done my homework and ORM about threats to the plant, and would have pre-identified resources to help me with unusual situations like this.  Somewhere on my checklist would have been "Call the FAA liaison guy.")

But in any event, it sounds like the local deputies started to work with the unicom operator and wanted the glider to land so LE could talk.  Apparently no one explained to them the realities of how gliders operate, and it appeared to them that the glider pilot was attempting to avoid contact with them.

For better or worse, that perception sometimes makes things escalate.

My final observation is that after being charged and released, the pilot was represented by an attorney during the process in which the charges were dismissed.  Although it is hard to tell from the promotional piece, it sounds like it was one of the AOPA's panel attorneys.

Interesting choice to agree to waive claims for a dismissal.  I don't allow such things in my court if I become aware of them.  I believe it is improper to an agency to condition the dimissal of a charge for a compromise on a potential civil lawsuit.  It was common in an earlier era for a dismissal in exchange for a "stipuation for probable cause to arrest."  But no longer, at least in California.  But maybe it is still ethical and appropriate on the Right Coast.

But apparently the pilot made a considered choice after full consultation with an attorney.

Like I said, interesting, but it is distinctly possible we do not have all the facts.

Ned Lee

[Buzz]

And it is not like a deputy sheriff can pull over and start leafing through the FARs to double-check when the call appears to be urgent. 

. . .which should be a sign to any "reasonable and prudent" cop that this isn't within his area of legal authority . . .

Consider that they took the word of someone who was WRONG and who had no authority whatsoever over aviation, then they rushed out to arrest a man for "violating" NON-EXISTENT LAW, and never once thought to find out the facts . . .

[Ned]

And it is not like a deputy sheriff can pull over and start leafing through the FARs to double-check when the call appears to be urgent. 

. . .which should be a sign to any "reasonable and prudent" cop that this isn't within his area of legal authority . . .

Consider that they took the word of someone who was WRONG and who had no authority whatsoever over aviation, then they rushed out to arrest a man for "violating" NON-EXISTENT LAW, and never once thought to find out the facts . . .

First, why do you think that local law enforcement can not take action when FARS and/or Federal law are violated?  My local airport (SJC) has about a dozen City of San Jose cops on duty at any given moment.  They can, and do take action for things like pilots with alcohol on their breath, disruptive passengers on an aircraft, etc.  All FAR/ federal law violations.

Do not confuse a LEO's "authority" with what it is that they do routinely.  The CHP spends the majority of its time enforcing traffic laws and assisting motorists.  But they can and do take action in routine criminal matters when necessary, because they have the authority to do so.

Returing to the OP, again it is a little hard to know what the facts are in this situation. 

But it sounds like the pilot was not charged with violating some "non-existent law."  The pilot was charged with violating a very real law (the breach of the peace statute), that was later dismissed.  And again, according to the promotional piece put out by AOPA, it sounds like the charges should have been dismissed.

But I submit that it is not all that unreasonable for an officer to take action based on an eyewitess' word, at least absent some indication that they are in error.  Witnesses are sometimes wrong, but that possibility should not paralyze law enforcement or prevent them on relying on a "citizen informant" when time is of the essence.

Charges are routinely dismissed in cases when later investigation casts doubt on the facts originally presented to the arresting officer.  Heck, it is not uncommon for a defendant to be found "not guilty" by a jury.  But that does not necessarily mean that the officers erred or acted outside their authority.

Officers are human, of course, and can and do make mistakes every day.  Sometimes terrible mistakes.  And officers sometimes act outside of their authority, but in good faith.  And finally, officers sometimes act in bad faith or deliberately violate the rights and freedoms of others.

There is just nothing in the story, as presented by the AOPA, that points to bad faith actions by the officers.  Clearly, mistakes were made.  But it sounds like the critical one was by the nuclear plant security officials complaining about lawful actions by the pilot.  That error set the chain of events into motion.

Anyway, that's my take.  Perhaps some truly independant source of information may become available.

[Flying Pig]

And it is not like a deputy sheriff can pull over and start leafing through the FARs to double-check when the call appears to be urgent. 

. . .which should be a sign to any "reasonable and prudent" cop that this isn't within his area of legal authority . . .

Consider that they took the word of someone who was WRONG and who had no authority whatsoever over aviation, then they rushed out to arrest a man for "violating" NON-EXISTENT LAW, and never once thought to find out the facts . . .

We do have authority to enforce certain FARs.  In fact, not long ago, I landed at a local airport and contact the pilot for possible intoxication.  Based on his conversation with the tower, his complete disorientation, some of his responses the the tower controllers.  I was asked by the tower to land and make contact with the pilot and confirm he was not intoxicated or having a medical issue.   Interesting enough, my partner and I were heading that way to do exactly that when the tower asked us for assistance.   He landed at another small local airport within the Class C.   He was getting his bags out of his Cessna 172 when I landed my MD500E right next to him.  I stayed in the aircraft while my partner contacted the pilot and determined he was just a completely unsatisfactory in his piloting abilities.   Our interests at that point ended.  I fulfilled my duty in making sure there were no laws violated.  Whether or not he sucks as a pilot isnt an LE issue.

Many of the arguments I see regarding this discussion are based off complete misconceptions about police tactics and authority.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its illegal or out of line. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ned:

Breach of Peace:

A comprehensive term encompassing acts or conduct that seriously endanger or disturb public peace and order.

A breach of the peace was a common-law offense, but is presently governed by statute in many states. It is frequently defined as constituting a form of Disorderly Conduct. Examples include using abusive or obscene language in a public place, resisting a lawful arrest, and trespassing or damaging property when accompanied by violence.

Statutes commonly require that conduct constituting a breach of the peace must be clearly a type of misbehavior resulting in public unrest or disturbance. As an example, a prostitute who solicited men walking by on a public street from her window was found guilty of breaching the peace, but a man who raised his voice to a police officer while the officer was issuing a ticket to him was not guilty of the same offense.

A breach of the peace is synonymous with a disturbance of the peace. Jurisdictions that do not have a specific statutory provision for the offense may punish it as a form of disorderly conduct. The usual penalty imposed is either a fine, imprisonment, or both.

From: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Then "Breach of Peace" is like yelling "fire" in a theater. So please explain how can this pilot be charged with a "Breach of Peace?"

I think I may understand how an airplane flying around a nuclear power plant may have scared someone, but a glider?!!!!!! Really?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reading the article at face value, this was a trumped-up charge. As if the LEO decided "I do not know whether he committed a crime, but if we dig up enough we will find something." They did overstep their authority.

And for those of you LEO that defend those officers pointing their guns at these two pilots, shame on you! Here in New York City that attitude has led to several shootings of people by police that were not in any way or manner doing anything illegal, were not a threat to the police, nor any weapon was found. I would not complain if you just drew, but not pointing.

Flyer

[Ned]

Luis,

I commend you for finding an encyclopedia definition of "breach of the peace," but I'm afraid that it is probably not very helpful for our discussion.

I have no idea what the actual text of the South Carolina statute says  (or even if South Carolina has a uncodified, common law definition breach of the peace offense).  I did find an older South Carolina Supreme Court decision that said the crime had "no precise definition," but I'm not sure that is still good law.  (And of course, it might not have been the state "Breach of the Peace" law; it could have been a local "breach of the peace" ordinance at the city or county level.)

But assuming for the moment it was a state law, state laws vary fairly widely, especially for older-type crimes like "vagrancy," "obstruction," or "breach of the peace."  And the same crime title / description may forbid a number of fairly diverse actions. 

As an example, in California we do not have common-law crimes or even a crime called "Breach of the Peace."  We have a "Disturbing the Peace" statute that forbids fighting or challenging to fight, loud and unreasonable noises, etc.  We also have a "Disorderly Conduct" law that criminalizes a fairly wide range of conduct from peeking into windows to prostitution and all the way to annoying a child.  With a lot in between.

We also have a "Resisting Arrest" statute that forbids folks from resisting, delaying, or obstructing a cop/firefighter/EMT, etc. in the performance of their duties (including passive resistance.)

My point is not to amaze you with the incredible variety and intricate detail of California law, but to suggest that it is entriely possible that the South Carolina laws concerning "breach of the peace" may include behavior beyond shouting "fire" in the proverbial theater.

It might, for instance, include resisiting an attempted detention in a situation where officers attemped to detain someone for suspicious conduct and the person resisted being detained.

But I don't really know.  None of us really know what happened here, or what the actual charges were for.

From my perspective, the other tantalizing clue is that the defendant -- while apparently fully advised by counsel -- elected to accept a dismissal while giving up a right to sue.

That would not make sense to me if the charge was so completely ridiculous as to be uncolorable.

But there are certainly many reasons why an out of custody defendant might make that decision.  Each of us has the right to make our own decisions when facing criminal charges.

This may indeed be a situation where jack-booted deputy sheriffs exceeded any reasonable notion of their authority and in bad faith arrested an senior citizen and threw him in jail to rot for absolutely no good reason.

But before making that inference, I would like to have facts provided by a source that is not trying to market a legal-defense fund.

Until then, I will keep my pitchfork and torches safely secured in the garage.

[rframe]

The Sheriff has commented on this now and said they arrested him on "breach of peace" because the FBI wanted him held and they had nothing to charge him with.  You guys still want to keep defending this nonsense?

[Ned]

The Sheriff has commented on this now and said they arrested him on "breach of peace" because the FBI wanted him held and they had nothing to charge him with.  You guys still want to keep defending this nonsense?

Explaining and pointing out possibly biased sources is not defending.  If anything, it just helps us put everything in perspective.

BTW, the Sheriff has not put anything about this on the Darlington County Sheriffs Office website. 

Neither the WMBF News Darlington County Bureau or the Darlington News and Press (Serving Darlington since 1874) seem to have any articles about the incident.

Once again, our only source for Sheriff Byrd's comments appears to be the AOPA website , which again prominently features an ad for their legal defense fund adjacent to the article.

As I've said before, the AOPA could be 100% right.  But I will keep those pitchforks secured as required by applicable government regulations until some independent information becomes available.

[abdsp51]

Flyer with all due respect that is sound tactical decision making.  The aircraft was reported stolen in that case and stolen usually can equate to being violently taken.  In virtually any state a man with a gun call or stolen vehicle is going to be responded to with max effort and weapons will be drawn and pointed.  That is the decision of the officer/s on scene to determine and is no ones place outside their chain of command and the courts to determine if they are wrong. At the end of the day everyone went home from it.

[wuzafuzz]

Aside from considering whether state and local law enforcement can enforce FAR's, some states have their own laws that apply.  When I was an airport patrol officer in So Cal I was aware of, and occasionally enforced, state laws and county ordinances affecting aviation.  It's been a long time but I think all the pertinent CA laws were in the Public Utilities Code.  My county had a long list of ordinances that applied on our county run airports as well. 

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PUC/1/d9/1
Chapter 3 is where all the stuff I remember is found.

[Al Sayre]

As a pilot who works at nuke plant I've had to put a stop to plant security over-reacting to low flying aircraft several times.   The key to stop this is to contact the Security Manager at the plant and show him/her in black and white what the  NOTAM actually says.  Last time I checked it simply said avoid overflight and loitering within 3 miles.   Communication is the key.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but it should start  with the pilot community near the plant making sure that the plant security understands what is a normal flight profile in the area. We routinely have aircraft flying down the MS river @ 500 -1000 ft agl and our security no longer panics because they understand it's a normal flight profile for our area and they know a typical GA aircraft couldn't do much more than scorch the paint on the side of our buildings.   

[Critical AOA]

As a pilot who works at nuke plant I've had to put a stop to plant security over-reacting to low flying aircraft several times.   The key to stop this is to contact the Security Manager at the plant and show him/her in black and white what the  NOTAM actually says.  Last time I checked it simply said avoid overflight and loitering within 3 miles.   Communication is the key.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but it should start  with the pilot community near the plant making sure that the plant security understands what is a normal flight profile in the area. We routinely have aircraft flying down the MS river @ 500 -1000 ft agl and our security no longer panics because they understand it's a normal flight profile for our area and they know a typical GA aircraft couldn't do much more than scorch the paint on the side of our buildings.

Something that I do routinely out of Memphis.   While I do not find any sort of flying boring per se, I do find flying at levels where it is hard to appreciate the landscape to be less interesting.   

[JeffDG]

I'm trying to figure out how an aircraft that makes no appreciable sound (due in the main to its lack of engine) could create a breach of peace at 1,000' AGL

[Flying Pig]

It has nothing to do with noise.  "Breach of the Peace" probably has several subsections. 

[SJFedor]

I'm trying to figure out how an aircraft that makes no appreciable sound (due in the main to its lack of engine) could create a breach of peace at 1,000' AGL

Because it's very possible that SC's statutes are worded as such, that something like "an aircraft (of any type) flying over (wherever) and causing a panic (actual or perceived)" can be placed into that definition. Re-read what Ned has said, he's a freaking Judge, and he did a very good explanation.

You're using common sense and acquired logic, since you know the difference between a glider, a cessna, and a 787. John Q Public typically has no (and I mean NONE) common sense, and can't tell the difference between a glider and a flying saucer. For all they knew, it was some new terrorist plane that's so stealthy that it makes no noise.

[Flying Pig]

HELLOOOO McFly....

We defeated Europe with gliders!!   Fill a glider full of paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne you can be quite dangerous!

[SJFedor]

HELLOOOO McFly....

We defeated Europe with gliders!!   Fill a glider full of paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne you can be quite dangerous!

Fill it with a General officer and too much armor plating and it gets quite dangerous, too.

And with that, i'm gonna make like a tree, and get out of here. 

[Buzz]

Aside from considering whether state and local law enforcement can enforce FAR's, some states have their own laws that apply.

Why would they go to all of the effort and expense to get those state laws, if they could enforce the Federal laws that they duplicate . . ?

The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't. 

If you look at state laws, you will see that the majority of them are directly copied from Federal law -- this is done to allow local cops to enforce such things as laws against drugs, laws requiring taillights on cars, etc.

Federal laws are enforced by Federal agents.  Unless there is enabling legislation to give authority to local cops (VERY rare in Federal law), they can only work under the authority of the Feds, generally under a warrant signed by a Federal judge.

[Ned]

Um, a fair number of South Carolina's criminal laws date from before there was a United States to crib from.

This is especially true for real old-school stuff like Breach of the Peace.

[stillamarine]

Aside from considering whether state and local law enforcement can enforce FAR's, some states have their own laws that apply.

Why would they go to all of the effort and expense to get those state laws, if they could enforce the Federal laws that they duplicate . . ?

The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't. 

If you look at state laws, you will see that the majority of them are directly copied from Federal law -- this is done to allow local cops to enforce such things as laws against drugs, laws requiring taillights on cars, etc.

Federal laws are enforced by Federal agents.  Unless there is enabling legislation to give authority to local cops (VERY rare in Federal law), they can only work under the authority of the Feds, generally under a warrant signed by a Federal judge.

Hehehe if you think I can't enforce federal law come on down here and break one for me. It's been awhile since I've seen the federal magistrate. Nice guy.

[Flying Pig]

^State/local cops may not actually arrest for the actual USC, but for any fed statute I bet I can find a state law that would apply.  At any rate, I can definitely detain you and call the appropriate a Federal agency to come and take it if that is needed.  In 16 years, Ive never run across anything that I had to call a fed?  Hmmmmm..   Maybe Ned can give some examples.  With the exception of dealing with immigration issues.  Ive detained illegals and called the Border Patrol who then came and took over.  Thats about it.  Any drug violation I can arrest for.  There may be a Fed connection if it involves trafficking, but its something that would stem from my arrest.  I would not need their permission to do anything.  Weapons are the same way.  States have their own Dept of Justice Agents that would work things with other counties.  No one agency "out ranks" any other agency.   The local Police Chief of a 5 man agency is responsible for his city the same way the Chief of LAPD is.  An elected Sheriff of a 10 man agency in a small county has the same jurisdictional authority as the Sheriff of San Diego County.  A Sheriff cant roll in to a city and "pull rank" nor can an FBI agent cant just walk in and say "I got it from here because this case looks fun." 

Ive been both a police officer and a Deputy Sheriff.  When I was a city police officer, sometimes the local Deputy would show up to assist me.  If the people were mad at me, they would turn to the Deputy and say "You are the Sheriff, tell this city cop he cant do this..."  Now that I am a Deputy, I stop people on the freeway and I get "You are a Sheriff, only the highway patrol can stop people on I-5"  I always respond with "That sounds like a great defense. I would encourage you to go with that one in court."   Needless to say, I havnt been to traffic court in years despite the large number of tickets Ive written.  When I worked Narcs, if there was a Fed connection, the ATF agent or the DEA agent on the team would work his angles. We never had to ask them for permission.  If things went across state lines, then it was up the feds on the team to pursue that.  Local cops can be granted federal powers for certain task forces.  Like the US Marshals Fugitive Team.  The Deputy Sheriff and the Police Officer assigned to that team are also Deputized US Marshals.  That allows them to go to other states to track down leads without worrying about jurisdictional boundaries on other states as it applies to chasing fugitives.   In the case of a federal search warrant.  Ive assisted on several of them.  I am assisting them as far as man power issues are concerned.  I am not "under their authority".   Because at the end of the day, its the Fed agents who are burning the midnight oil writing the arrest reports and booking evidence long after Ive gone home and popped open a frosty beverage 

Generally, I would arrest for the state violation and let the DA worry about giving it to the feds.  Interesting, Ive never asked a Fed to arrest anyone for me, but Ive been asked by Feds to arrest someone for them on state law violations.  Contrary to what Hollywood portrays, the feds dont roll through the crime scene tape, whip out their badges and relieve the local cops.   LEOs understand jurisdiction.  If its yours, its yours and you can have it. 

I dont see Feds out doing traffic stops and enforcing the CA Vehicle Code, which by the way, is where I netted probably the majority of my self initiated felony arrests and had the majority of my violent encounters.