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

[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.