Skip to main content

Pilot Suspended from Flying after receiving a DUI while Driving

Written by David O
Leave a Comment
Pilot Suspended from Flying after receiving a DUI while Driving

Jimmy Carrillo may be freaking out right about now due to his recent DUI arrest possibly destroying his career as a pilot.  Carrillo, has been removed from duty as a pilot with PSA Airlines, a subsidiary of American Airlines, while his DUI is under investigation, which could mean no flying and possibly no paycheck for Carrillo for many months.  It is not unusual for a DUI investigation and case to take months to resolve and some DUI cases can take a year or more to come to an end.

Carrillo, a North Carolina resident was in Naples, Florida when he was arrested for drunk driving.  According to police reports, on Monday morning around 2:11 am, Carrillo failed to stop his 2014 grey Buick rental car at a flashing red light.  He ran the light and cut in front of a deputy and another driver.  Police pulled the 35-year old over and questioned him on his whereabouts. Carrillo admitted he had just come from a local bar, Blue Martini, and while holding up four fingers he told the officers he had only consumed two drinks.  The pilot knew he was in the hot seat and tried talking his way out of the DUI by saying, “I have too much to lose,” and that he could call someone to pick him up immediately or take a cab.  He also reassured the local deputies that he, “wouldn’t fly an airplane for the next 12 hours.”  Carrillo’s BAC revealed a result was 0.095, he was arrested and charged with DUI.  Florida’s legal drinking limit is 0.08, the same as Washington State’s legal limit.

According to the Federal Aviation Regulation the use of alcohol and drugs by pilots is regulated by FAR 917.  Among other provisions, this regulation states that no person may operate or attempt to operate an aircraft: within 8 hours of having consumed alcohol, or while under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol content of 0.04% or greater, or while using any drug that adversely affects safety.

Carrillo needs to hire a strong DUI defense lawyer, his career is depending on it.  Since Carrillo doesn’t live in Florida, he most likely doesn’t have a personal referral for a good DUI attorney and will have to find one on his own.  He would greatly benefit from reading our web page, “How to Pick a DUI or Criminal Defense Attorney – Know What Questions to Ask,” which provides information on to select the best DUI attorney for case representation.

 

Written by Sarah Ann

DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI, Legal Blog, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“DUI Policy Day” – For Lawmakers in Olympia

Written by David O
Leave a Comment
“DUI Policy Day” – For Lawmakers in Olympia

This past Tuesday, lawmakers in Olympia Washington had an unofficial “DUI Policy Day” to review and discuss House Bills 2344, 2506, 2507,  2503,and 2728.  The bills will provide clarity to unclear current DUI laws and will also stiffen penalties for repeat DUI offenders.

House Judiciary Committee chairman, Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland lead the discussion on bills.  Bill 2344 became a fiery debate.  2344 would require the Department of Licensing to mail out reminders of installation of an ignition interlock device to individuals who have been convicted of a DUI.  The ignition interlock device prevents drunk driving by requiring the driver to blow into a breathalyzer before their car will start.  Additionally, the bill stated that if an individual bought a new car to circumvent placing an ignition interlock device into their car they would be charged with a gross misdemeanor.  Republican Chad Magendanz, supporter and sponsor of Bill 2344, said it’s “absolutely clear,” this bill will prevent accidents and will detour individuals from buying a new car to escape placement of an ignition interlock device into their current car.  DUI defense attorneys and other opponents of 2344 exclaimed the bill was vague and way too costly at a projected 6 million to print and send ignition interlock reminders.  Goodman stated the cost “might put the bill in jeopardy.”

Bill 2506 requires Class C DUI felonies to be upgraded to Class B felonies.  The change in class would not increase sentencing ranges but would enhance post prison supervision on individuals that have an extensive criminal history.  Amy Freidheim, a King County prosecutor, said  this bill would only affect about a half-dozen people in King County over the past seven years.  Thus, bill 2506 would change post-jail conditions for approximately one person in King County each year.

Bill 2507 enhances penalties for individuals that have committed at least two DUI related vehicular homicides.  For the very very small number of individuals that fall into this category, they would have substantial increased jail time.

Bills 2503 and 2728 are primary technical changes, including or excluding wording.  However, the bills do include the ability for law enforcement to conduct blood draws from individuals that contest taking the alcohol breath tests.  Law enforcement would no longer require a warrant for the blood draw.

In addition to these 5 bills, Roger Goodman brought up several other DUI crack down ideas which included random DUI checkpoints.  Most of the ideas were quickly thrown out due to cost or overall ineffectiveness.  Marijuana DUI discussions were also heard.  Activists were voicing their disagreement with I-502 making it a crime to drive with five nanograms of THC (the active component in marijuana) in an individuals blood stream.  Their thoughts were five nanaograms was too low of a limit and that many law-abiding medical marijuana users have more than that in their bloodstreams and still physically and mentally function at levels safe enough to operate a car.

 

Written by S.O

 

DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI, Legal Blog, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Washington State Lawmakers Push For DUI Check Points

Written by David O
Leave a Comment
Washington State Lawmakers Push For DUI Check Points

DUI News – State lawmakers and advocates are at it again, trying to change the law and amend the constitution to legalize random DUI check points here in Washington State.  The legalization of DUI check points would allow law enforcement to stop vehicles without legal cause and investigate individuals for possible driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.  Why try again?  Supporters of DUI check points are convinced individuals will think twice about drunk driving knowing they could be stopped at a DUI sobriety check point and thus drunk driving would decrease.

Democratic State Representative Roger Goodman, of Kirkland, appears to be a supporting forefront voice on the controversial issue saying, “We’ve made a lot of progress in enacting DUI laws, but there’s one missing piece and that’s the sobriety checkpoints, which have been shown to reduce deaths by 25 to 30 percent in other states that have them.”  According to Goodman, 38 states nationwide and the District of Columbia currently have similar DUI check point laws in place.

Goodman, other lawmakers, MADD, and advocates for victims and survivors of drunk driving accidents have banded together knowing they have an extremely tough uphill battle to try to pass random DUI check points into law.  Past attempts to move DUI check points into law have all failed due to Washington State’s constitution having very strict privacy laws.  A report produced by the lawmakers and advocates will likely be handed over to state officials on December 4th to continue their push forward for DUI check points.

Those opposing DUI check points are not lying low, they are loudly voicing violations of State and Federal constitutional rights.  Many are saying Washington State is unique for having strict privacy laws and it should stay that way.  Doug Honig with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Washington State, shared his stance saying, “In our society, if you’re out and about on the highway and you aren’t doing anything wrong, law enforcement shouldn’t be stopping you.”  He continued, “It’s a matter of general freedom in our society.”

This issue of legalizing DUI check points is difficult, on one hand we want to keep all people safe, on the other hand it would cost the right to privacy while driving.  When it comes to civil liberties I think it is wise to remember the old saying, “If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.”  Meaning, if we give up our right to privacy while driving and allow police officers to investigate anyone for possible DUI what will come next… allowing random searches of vehicles… or allowing law enforcement to enter homes without cause or warrant?  The more we allow law enforcement to encroach on our daily lives, the less freedom we truly have.

The information above was derived from the article Sobering idea?  State floats idea of random DUI check points, written by Lindsay Cohen, Nov. 6th 2013 and can be found on Kiro.com.

 

Written by S.O

 

 

DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI, Legal Blog, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,