American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Assuming a specimen of blood has been sent for analysis) the analysis itself is very quick but there's always a backlog at the labs.
Someone suggested earlier that the period between arrest/sample and returning to the police station is based upon 'how long an independent test can take.' That is not correct.
The decision whether to charge is based upon the result of the 'official' analysis arranged by the police. The result of any independent analysis may/may not become relevant at a later stage if a suspect is charged.
FL
To avoid any misunderstanding:
I'm not involved in this case. I asked a friend in Manchester to find out what (if anything) had happened on the original 'return date'. He discovered the bail period had been extended.
Someone suggested earlier that the period between arrest/sample and returning to the police station is based upon 'how long an independent test can take.' That is not correct.
The decision whether to charge is based upon the result of the 'official' analysis arranged by the police. The result of any independent analysis may/may not become relevant at a later stage if a suspect is charged.
FL
To avoid any misunderstanding:
I'm not involved in this case. I asked a friend in Manchester to find out what (if anything) had happened on the original 'return date'. He discovered the bail period had been extended.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original date of the pilot's bail was extended from 14th March to last Wednesday 5th April.
It has since been extended yet again - for further enquiries by Manchester police - this time for a another ten weeks to the 15th June.
This is police bail. He hasn't appeared before a court.
Police say "Enquiries are continuing".
If the police had sufficient evidence to charge him, they would have done so.
If the further enquiries produce sufficient evidence, he may yet be charged.
Such long delays are very unusual in an 'alcohol' case.
It's highly unlikely that the police have not yet received the results of the analysis from the lab - he was arrested on 11th February.
It's obviously not quite as clear cut as some here assumed. eg "He has been nicked! End."
FL
It has since been extended yet again - for further enquiries by Manchester police - this time for a another ten weeks to the 15th June.
This is police bail. He hasn't appeared before a court.
Police say "Enquiries are continuing".
If the police had sufficient evidence to charge him, they would have done so.
If the further enquiries produce sufficient evidence, he may yet be charged.
Such long delays are very unusual in an 'alcohol' case.
It's highly unlikely that the police have not yet received the results of the analysis from the lab - he was arrested on 11th February.
It's obviously not quite as clear cut as some here assumed. eg "He has been nicked! End."
FL
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
Would clouding issues by missquoting not be better suited to courts?
However moving on,...
The backlog of blood sample tests may have been the case in the days before ESD's and EBM's, in respect of drink drive cases, but is far less now, as it is unusual for a blood sample to need testing.
Even in the days when all samples of blood were anyalised, the delay was never more than 4 weeks. (although that was in London where we had our own lab, and didn't use HO facilities)
I would guess, the delay has nothing to do with the sample, if that is the case, that would indicate it was above the limit.
It would more probably have to do with claims of status of the arrested person in relation to what, if any aviation related function he was proforming.
Yes, I admit that is an assumption, but based on experence.
As for time of bail in drink drive cases In my force it was 6 weeks, because that would be how long an independent test would take, being mindful of originally, when the person returned to be charged (if he wasn't going to be he would be informed by letter he did not have to come back to the station), the court date would be within a few days. Thus the time between arrest and appearance at court gave him the chance to get his defence in order if he needed too.
Would clouding issues by missquoting not be better suited to courts?
However moving on,...
The backlog of blood sample tests may have been the case in the days before ESD's and EBM's, in respect of drink drive cases, but is far less now, as it is unusual for a blood sample to need testing.
Even in the days when all samples of blood were anyalised, the delay was never more than 4 weeks. (although that was in London where we had our own lab, and didn't use HO facilities)
I would guess, the delay has nothing to do with the sample, if that is the case, that would indicate it was above the limit.
It would more probably have to do with claims of status of the arrested person in relation to what, if any aviation related function he was proforming.
Yes, I admit that is an assumption, but based on experence.
As for time of bail in drink drive cases In my force it was 6 weeks, because that would be how long an independent test would take, being mindful of originally, when the person returned to be charged (if he wasn't going to be he would be informed by letter he did not have to come back to the station), the court date would be within a few days. Thus the time between arrest and appearance at court gave him the chance to get his defence in order if he needed too.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
It was 'copy and paste' not "missquoting." However moving on ...
I didn't suggest the delay might be caused by a backlog of blood sample tests. On the contrary; see my post.
Your assumption that the further delay concerns his alleged status/aviation function may well be correct - interesting that you refer to "claims" of status - but would it not be better to resist the temptation to make assumptions at this stage?
I posted a series of facts I know to be correct in order to keep people up to date with developments.
It wasn't my intention to encourage more assumptions, speculation and counter-speculation and IMHO it would be better (and fairer to the man) if that doesn't happen.
FL
It was 'copy and paste' not "missquoting." However moving on ...
I didn't suggest the delay might be caused by a backlog of blood sample tests. On the contrary; see my post.
Your assumption that the further delay concerns his alleged status/aviation function may well be correct - interesting that you refer to "claims" of status - but would it not be better to resist the temptation to make assumptions at this stage?
I posted a series of facts I know to be correct in order to keep people up to date with developments.
It wasn't my intention to encourage more assumptions, speculation and counter-speculation and IMHO it would be better (and fairer to the man) if that doesn't happen.
FL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
The original date of the pilot's bail was extended from 14th March to last Wednesday 5th April.
It has since been extended yet again - for further enquiries by Manchester police - this time for a another ten weeks to the 15th June.
This is police bail. He hasn't appeared before a court.
Police say "Enquiries are continuing".
If the police had sufficient evidence to charge him, they would have done so.
If the further enquiries produce sufficient evidence, he may yet be charged.
Such long delays are very unusual in an 'alcohol' case.
It's highly unlikely that the police have not yet received the results of the analysis from the lab - he was arrested on 11th February.
It's obviously not quite as clear cut as some here assumed. eg "He has been nicked! End."FL
It has since been extended yet again - for further enquiries by Manchester police - this time for a another ten weeks to the 15th June.
This is police bail. He hasn't appeared before a court.
Police say "Enquiries are continuing".
If the police had sufficient evidence to charge him, they would have done so.
If the further enquiries produce sufficient evidence, he may yet be charged.
Such long delays are very unusual in an 'alcohol' case.
It's highly unlikely that the police have not yet received the results of the analysis from the lab - he was arrested on 11th February.
It's obviously not quite as clear cut as some here assumed. eg "He has been nicked! End."FL
The above information seems to be good news for our pilot, eh?
If FL's reporting/information is accurate, it seems my original posts, regarding an offense NEVER occuring due to primary OR ancillary flight duties NEVER being accomplished, might be correct (see 2003 UK law).
KC135777
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC135777
So far, yes - but it's no indication of what might eventually happen.
ie We don't yet know what the 'further enquiries' will reveal.
Speculation in favour of the pilot by those whose background understandably leads them to hope a fellow pilot is innocent is no more productive than speculation against him by anyone whose background understandably leads them to take a police or prosecution view.
FL
The above information seems to be good news for our pilot, eh?
ie We don't yet know what the 'further enquiries' will reveal.
Speculation in favour of the pilot by those whose background understandably leads them to hope a fellow pilot is innocent is no more productive than speculation against him by anyone whose background understandably leads them to take a police or prosecution view.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Apr 2006 at 08:59.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
TomConard
If he had blown that, then why would he still be on bail? He would have committed no offence, there would have been no reason for arrest.
If he had blown that, then why would he still be on bail? He would have committed no offence, there would have been no reason for arrest.
And there are tons of other issues that can cause behavior causing folks to think someone's under the influence of alcohol. Drugs or illnesses come to mind.
That's why they have investigations.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misd-agin
Indded there are, drugs for instance. But, the claim was he had blown 0.01, way way under the limit.
So the evidence for arrest for suspcion of an alcohol related offence (See AA's statement on page one) would not be there.
If he was arrested for another offence, unrelated to alcohol, yes, it could be the reason for the prolonged bail. It would be very unusal though, to bail someone for that length of time in the UK.
Indded there are, drugs for instance. But, the claim was he had blown 0.01, way way under the limit.
So the evidence for arrest for suspcion of an alcohol related offence (See AA's statement on page one) would not be there.
If he was arrested for another offence, unrelated to alcohol, yes, it could be the reason for the prolonged bail. It would be very unusal though, to bail someone for that length of time in the UK.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arresting officers probably don't have the ability to do an blood alcohol test there. They make arrests based on observations. Perhaps his behavior lead them to think he was under the influence of alcohol.
Apparently he wasn't. So the question is still back to square one, what happened?
Time will tell all.
Apparently he wasn't. So the question is still back to square one, what happened?
Time will tell all.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
misd-agin
Arresting officers in the UK certainly do have the ability to breath test.
Arresting officers in the UK certainly do have the ability to breath test.
They don't start by just giving breath tests. They see behavior that leads to a breath test. If the .01 report is accurate their suspicions of alcohol impairment were wrong.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misd-agin
Yes, a Polcie officer has to have reasonable grounds for a test.
Once he has those, he can administer one, which in the UK is done at the place where the person he is called to is.
If thats positive, ie over the limit, that would lead to arrest. This screening breath test providing the evidence for that arrest.
At a Police station, the person is then required to give a further sample, of either breath, blood or urine. That is then tested.
If blood or urine is taken, the person will be released on bail until the result of the test is known. A breath test is obviously anyalised at the time, and provides an imidiate answer.
Whichever type of sample is taken, if and when it is negative, ie below the limit, then the suspect is either released, or informed he does not have to return on bail. In the case of blood/urine being below the limit, that would happen in a few weeks. Not months.
Yes, it is possible that another offence has become apparent. But given the time he was bailed for, I doubt it.
Yes, a Polcie officer has to have reasonable grounds for a test.
Once he has those, he can administer one, which in the UK is done at the place where the person he is called to is.
If thats positive, ie over the limit, that would lead to arrest. This screening breath test providing the evidence for that arrest.
At a Police station, the person is then required to give a further sample, of either breath, blood or urine. That is then tested.
If blood or urine is taken, the person will be released on bail until the result of the test is known. A breath test is obviously anyalised at the time, and provides an imidiate answer.
Whichever type of sample is taken, if and when it is negative, ie below the limit, then the suspect is either released, or informed he does not have to return on bail. In the case of blood/urine being below the limit, that would happen in a few weeks. Not months.
Yes, it is possible that another offence has become apparent. But given the time he was bailed for, I doubt it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
misd-agin
If thats positive, ie over the limit, that would lead to arrest.
If thats positive, ie over the limit, that would lead to arrest.
Unless of course....you're talking about public drunkedness, or some other "general" public offense by any person. ;-)
Hey, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Going through security does NOT constitute flight duties, therefore no offense was committed.
I hope for this guy's sake, that's where it occurred.
KC135777
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TomConard
I heard....just a rumor...that the guy blew only a .01. I got this information from someone in management at AA.
A blood test however would not show this amount and he would be cleared.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC135777
That is correct.
Guilt or innocence does not depend upon whether someone goes through security.
An offence under the Act may be committed without going through security and, similarly, going through security does not necessarily mean that someone is performing an aviation function/an activity ancillary to an aviation function.
In each case, it would depend upon the circumstances.
Going through security does NOT constitute flight duties
Guilt or innocence does not depend upon whether someone goes through security.
An offence under the Act may be committed without going through security and, similarly, going through security does not necessarily mean that someone is performing an aviation function/an activity ancillary to an aviation function.
In each case, it would depend upon the circumstances.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
KC135777
That is correct.
Guilt or innocence does not depend upon whether someone goes through security.
An offence under the Act may be committed without going through security and, similarly, going through security does not necessarily mean that someone is performing an aviation function/an activity ancillary to an aviation function.
In each case, it would depend upon the circumstances.
That is correct.
Guilt or innocence does not depend upon whether someone goes through security.
An offence under the Act may be committed without going through security and, similarly, going through security does not necessarily mean that someone is performing an aviation function/an activity ancillary to an aviation function.
In each case, it would depend upon the circumstances.
19 April already.... so where does this thing stand? Any intel from the MAN police dep't? KC135777
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC
Nothing more than I posted earlier -
All that can safely be inferred from that is the police didn't have sufficient evidence to charge him on the 5th April and they are still investigating/trying to gather evidence.
It's pointless speculating. If you say anything which suggests the pilot may be innocent, at least one of our number is bound to respond suggesting he may be guilty.
FL
Nothing more than I posted earlier -
The original bail date of the pilot's bail was extended from 14th March to last Wednesday 5th April.
It has since been extended yet again - for further enquiries by Manchester police - this time for a another ten weeks to the 15th June.
It has since been extended yet again - for further enquiries by Manchester police - this time for a another ten weeks to the 15th June.
It's pointless speculating. If you say anything which suggests the pilot may be innocent, at least one of our number is bound to respond suggesting he may be guilty.
FL