FAA head Randy Babbitt arrested for drunk driving

[ryoder 1,590]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/faa-head-randy-babbitt-charged-with-drunk-driving-in-fairfax/2011/12/05/gIQAkNjdWO_blog.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[masterrig 1]

Lks like he forgot rule #1... 8-hrs. from bottle to throttle!


Chuck

[JohnRich 4]

Duplicate post.

[JohnRich 4]

Update:

Judge dismisses DWI charges against ex-FAA chief

"A judge on Thursday tossed out drunken driving charges against the former head of the Federal Aviation Administration after seeing video of the traffic stop and ruling that the officer had no legitimate reason to stop the driver..."

Full story: Aviation Pros

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Update:

Judge dismisses DWI charges against ex-FAA chief

"A judge on Thursday tossed out drunken driving charges against the former head of the Federal Aviation Administration after seeing video of the traffic stop and ruling that the officer had no legitimate reason to stop the driver..."

Full story: Aviation Pros

any takers on how many non FAA chiefs would get that treatment....do we have 1 in 100?

In California .07 can still be a DUI conviction if you fail the other tests. At .08 it's a given. At < .04 it's a given that you're not guilty.

[Andy9o8 2]

I've tried or watched more DUI cases than I could possibly count. Just outrageous. Way to undermine the public's faith in the justice system, Judge.

Unfair judicial bias in criminal cases usually favors the prosecution. In this case, that was flipped. The people of Virginia were screwed out of a fair day in court.

[normiss 896]

So you support a traffic stop with no probable cause?


I feel like he enforced my faith in the system.
Not everyone is guilty every time.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So you support a traffic stop with no probable cause?

Uh, no; having practiced criminal defense (among other things) for 25 years, that's the last thing I'd support, and I'm quite sure I didn't say that.

In my professional opinion, the officer had probable cause, and the judge was being intellectually dishonest. I've seen a lot probable cause (and/or lack of it), as well as a hell of a lot of judicial intellectual dishonesty in the courtroom, so I base my comments on that foundation.

[normiss 896]

Maybe I'm mistaken, I didn't see the video.

Judge didn't see PC, it's his court and his case.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Maybe I'm mistaken, I didn't see the video.

Judge didn't see PC, it's his court and his case.

No doubt. Yes, I'm basing my opinion on what I read. But combining that with my own experience in the field, what I reasonably extrapolate leads me to my conclusion, and I stand by it.

[lawrocket 3]

The bitch in this is that as much as I like to believe how things are supposed to work, I also am one who knows that the way things really DO work is often different. And in matters of court, things may seem arbitrary at times.

The fact that you know how this works because you've been doing it and seeing it all this time gives you a bit more deference in spotting things that appear irregular and make it tough for me to disagree.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Judge didn't see PC, it's his court and his case.

and his celebrity defendant.

[normiss 896]

Meh, if you want.

My buddy's girlfriend beat a DUI on same grounds.
She was hammered too, judge pointed that out.
But she shouldn't have been stopped with no PC, he was just camping out near a bar like a baited field.

[JohnRich 4]

He may or may not have been legally drunk, based upon his BAC. He didn't cause an accident. He wasn't even driving in an unsafe manner. And if he was drunk, it was only marginally so.

So what would the normal sentence be for a first time DUI offender in these circumstances?

As a consequence of being charged, he's already lost his high-paying job, has been publicly humiliated, and probably had to pay an attorney $10,000. Could the judicial sentence, if he had been found guilty, have been worse than what he's already suffered?

I'm not making excuses for him. I'm just wondering if the judge might have thought that with the weak case the state had, that Babbitt has already paid a price that is heavier than what he can do to him.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

He may or may not have been legally drunk, based upon his BAC.

Seems right at the BAC border, yes.

Quote

He didn't cause an accident.

If he was drunk, thank God the officer stopped him before he did.

Quote

He wasn't even driving in an unsafe manner.

The officer seemed to have thought he was. If he only scooted over to the left side of the road for an instant to set up a quick left turn into that parking lot, well, I admit I've done that, too. But if it was for more than a quick moment with no other traffic to impede with, then I'd call that unsafe.

Quote

And if he was drunk, it was only marginally so.

Yep.

Quote

So what would the normal sentence be for a first time DUI offender in these circumstances?

Varies by each state, but in Virginia, as a first offender, with BAC under .15, a mandatory minimum $250 fine and driver's license revocation for one year. But the judge has some discretion, so potentially a max of 1 year and $2,500 (plus license). PLUS, and this is important, he would have his first DUI conviction on record, so if he did it again, he wouldn't get first-offender treatment either in VA or most other US states. If he's an alcoholic (thus prone to drive drunk again), that's a benefit to society. If it was only a once-off misjudgment without addiction, then I'd view that as less significant to society.

Quote

As a consequence of being charged, he's already lost his high-paying job, has been publicly humiliated,

No doubt.

Quote

and probably had to pay an attorney $10,000.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Quote

Could the judicial sentence, if he had been found guilty, have been worse than what he's already suffered?

Well, see above. But in any event, that's a judgment call that each of us as citizens can make and debate.

Quote

I'm not making excuses for him. I'm just wondering if the judge might have thought that with the weak case the state had, that Babbitt has already paid a price that is heavier than what he can do to him.

Certainly that could have been the judge's thinking. But the countervailing factor is that if it smacks of favoritism, that risks sending an "unequal justice" message to society, and that pisses ordinary citizens off. Plus, if Mr. Babbit's an alcoholic (and I have no idea if he is), giving him a pass on consequences of alcohol-induced anti-social behavior is just enabling him. Bad thing to do for any substance abuser - bad for him, bad for his family, bad for society.

[normiss 896]

Quote

The officer seemed to have thought he was. If he only scooted over to the left side of the road for an instant to set up a quick left turn into that parking lot, well, I admit I've done that, too. But if it was for more than a quick moment with no other traffic to impede with, then I'd call that unsafe.

Maybe that's exactly what the judge thought....and yet if he never crosses the yellow line, there's no violation, no PC.

Case dismissed.
Call the next case.

[Andy9o8 2]

The article said police saw him driving on the wrong side of the road. That sounds like PC to me. Now, if the evidence played out in court very differently, that's one thing. But if the evidence was indeed consistent with driving on the wrong side of the road, that really is PC to stop.

[normiss 896]

If I missed that I would think I owe you a big duh.
sorry...



yup...unless video shows different, it does sound like plenty of pc to go around.

My bad. Lazy reading.