Patty Wagstaff

lancef53 · Post by **lancef53** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:25 pm

I don't have any other info than what has been public knowledge(avweb), but I would guess that if Wagstaff is making a statement that "I did not do a breath test, a blood test, or a field sobriety test" , getting a drunk driving conviction is gonna be a tough one to stick.

Did she hit a police officer? I didn't hear about that part of the story.

Just a guess, but since it has been almost 2 weeks since the event and it is still a convoluted mess, the case may be falling apart. It seems like a waste of taxpayer money for a DA to spend 2 weeks preparing for a DUI case.

I guess it gives us something to talk about, anyways.

Lance

RVNewsletter · Post by **RVNewsletter** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:44 pm

There's that, and the EAA holds, I presume, a significant amount of power in Winnebago County. I imagine in the end it won't much matter what the facts of the case are. The DA will drop it just to get people off his back.

mhilderbrand · Post by **mhilderbrand** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:45 am

She is suppose to be here in wichita in a couple of weeks - I will just ask her what the heck happened

RVNewsletter · Post by **RVNewsletter** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:29 am

I wrote on the blog yesterday about the situation and raised the question of whether the reason Wagstaff says she wasn't given a sobriety test was because she REFUSED a sobriety test.

AVWEB reports today that, in fact, she did refuse a sobriety test.

I called the DA over in Winnebago County but -- being government employees -- they didn't bother returning my call.

she's been charged and the FAA looks very, very unkindly on pilots who refuse to take a sobriety test.

Theoretically, she should have her certificate suspended now. But I'll bet she doesn't lose it. She's not like the rest of us.

lancef53 · Post by **lancef53** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:06 pm

To me it is a different story if she refused a test. By doing that you essentially prove your guilt, why not take it if you are sober.

In North Dakota, if you refuse to take a requested test, you lose you drivers license for a set amount of time. Not sure how things work in Wisconsin, but I would guess it is similar.

Sounds like a mess, anyways.

Post by **Spike** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:00 pm

lancef53 wrote: why not take it if you are sober.

Because I don't want to?

lancef53 · Post by **lancef53** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:41 pm

Ha Ha, try that answer in court.

Driving is a privledge(sp!), not a right, I would guess he might say.

Post by **Spike** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:57 pm

lancef53 wrote:Ha Ha, try that answer in court.

Driving is a privledge(sp!), not a right, I would guess he might say.

I made no mention of driving, or privileges, etc. You asked why would someone refuse to take the test when they are sober? I answered. I said nothing to correlate that with "driving privileges".

The argument of subjecting yourself to a search, inspection, or any type of test on the basis that you have nothing to hide is bogus. It is one more step in the rationalization of giving our liberty of privacy away. Its just one more link towards a society where we have to carry our papers and show them at checkpoints.

smithhb · Post by **smithhb** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:19 pm

I agree with Spike. There is no penalty or admission of guilt or innocence by refusing the "field sobriety" test. As a behavioral health counselor, I also can tell you that the test kits used for field sobriety testing are highly unreliable in terms of accuracy and even have "use before" dates on the kits.

If you refuse the field test you will be expected to submit blood/urine at the station. This test IS reliable and accurate. If you refuse this test, the police can press charges. I agree that if Patty was innocent, there would be no reason for her to refuse to submit to the test at the station.

RVNewsletter · Post by **RVNewsletter** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:08 am

Why do you guys hate America, so?

I notice that Patty left her email address in a guestbook posting on Alan Henley's Caring Bridge site. Who wants to drop her a note?

Post by **Spike** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:29 am

Nah, she has enough to worry about without talking to the peanut gallery. Thanx for the offer though

I don't hold anything against her. She messed up, and probably a whole lot less than I have in the past. Refusing the test if thats what the courts decide she did, might have been done purely out of fear or being incredulous, which I would understand.

What I find distasteful is the idea of being found guilty of any type of charge because you refuse to take a test, incriminate yourself, etc. Especially under the notion of "if you don't have anything to hide...". I don't have a problem with losing your license as that is part of the agreement to get one, but to be found guilty of a charge because you refuse to take a test is definitely anti-american.

RVNewsletter · Post by **RVNewsletter** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:41 am

I agree with you, Spike. The "if you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is a pretty ridiculous stance as we've watched civil liberties slip away. Nobody in their right mind would want, say, the cops to be able to come into your home on that basis. And usually when people utter that, they're really talking about other people's rights.

Try to use the same theory for mandatory ramp checks and see how the aviation community responds.

That said, how else to prove drunk driving without a test?

A lot of folks dismiss the charge. But I know far too many people who've been killed by drunk drivers.

RVNewsletter · Post by **RVNewsletter** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:02 am

Of course, the other thing is Wisconsin may be THE weirdest state in the country when it comes to drinking. And the upper Midwest in general usual leads the nation in binge drinking.

It is nothing, if not inconsistent on the subject.

lancef53 · Post by **lancef53** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:04 am

I guess we all have opinions, I don't feel like it is a violation of my privacy to submit to a sobriety test after I have been stopped for erratic driving.

Lance

jim_geo · Post by **jim_geo** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:19 pm

From what I read she wasn't driving, she was flying and I also read she punched a cop. Now how do you feel about it?

RVNewsletter · Post by **RVNewsletter** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:29 pm

She was stopped on a runway, but she was driving.

Don P-Factor · Post by **Don P-Factor** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:17 pm

There may be a question of who, if any one has the jurisdiction of a Runway that's closed. I know if you're not on a public road the city or county officers may not have the authority to charge someone. Don.

N200PF · Post by **N200PF** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:20 pm

Believe it or not in the State of MN if you are in your driveway, in your car and the car is running you can be charged. ...even if it's still in park!

I was a cop in a Suburb of St. Paul, MN many years ago and this was the case. We never took it to that extreme but legally we could have.

...not sure about Wisconsin considering their state drink is beer!

- Peter

weezbad · Post by **weezbad** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:07 pm

peter, the mn laws must be the same a N.C. my friend was drunk and stopped at a convienience store to sleep it off. he went to jail for dui.....only because the keys were still in the ignition. had he removed the keys it would have simply been public drunk. this was in eureka springs in fayetteville. we were in the army in 1989. guys name was Dave d.

lancef53 · Post by **lancef53** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:07 pm

In North Dakota, you can get a DUI for driving under the influence, or a charge called Actual Physical Control, which covers being drunk and having access to a vehicle. Both have basically the same penalties.

RivetBangers.com

Patty Wagstaff

Jurisdiction