Hughes v. State
2006 WL 1896383, 943 So. 2d 176 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State criminal statutes that prohibit operating an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or in a careless manner are not preempted by federal aviation law. The term "operate" under such a statute encompasses pilots' pre-flight activities performed in the cockpit for the purpose of air navigation, even before the aircraft moves under its own power.
Facts:
- Christopher S. Hughes, a commercial airline pilot, and his copilot, Thomas Porter Cloyd, were scheduled to fly a passenger aircraft from Miami to Phoenix.
- The night before the flight, Hughes and Cloyd drank heavily at a restaurant and bar, consuming wine, martinis, and numerous large mugs of beer until after 5:00 a.m.
- On the morning of the flight, Hughes overslept, causing the crew to arrive late at the airport.
- Less than forty minutes prior to departure, airport security personnel noticed the odor of an alcoholic beverage on Hughes, who denied that he had been drinking.
- Hughes and Cloyd entered the cockpit and began performing pre-flight procedures, including systems checks and inputting flight data into the aircraft's computer.
- The aircraft was connected to a pushback tug when police officers, alerted by security, arrived at the gate.
- The officers ordered the tug driver to return the aircraft to the gate, stopping the departure process.
- Subsequent breathalyzer tests and retrograde extrapolation indicated Hughes had a breath alcohol content between .113 and .145 while he was performing his duties in the cockpit.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Hughes and his co-defendant were criminally prosecuted in a Florida state trial court.
- Hughes filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the charges based on federal preemption, which the trial court denied.
- Hughes petitioned the Florida Third District Court of Appeal for a writ of prohibition to stop the prosecution on preemption grounds; the petition was denied.
- Hughes then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court, which granted the petition, finding the state prosecution was preempted.
- On appeal by the state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court, holding that the federal court should have abstained from interfering with the state case.
- The case returned to the Florida trial court, where a jury convicted Hughes of operating an aircraft while intoxicated or in a careless or reckless manner.
- Hughes, the appellant, then appealed his conviction to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, with the State of Florida as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does federal aviation law preempt a Florida state statute that criminalizes operating an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or in a careless or reckless manner?
Opinions:
Majority - Rothenberg, J.
No, federal aviation law does not preempt the Florida statute. The court held that the state's criminal prosecution was permissible because federal law has not displaced the state's traditional police powers in this area. First, the court found the preemption claim was barred by res judicata from a prior state appellate ruling. Addressing the merits nonetheless, the court found no express preemption, as federal regulations governing pilot certification and operating requirements do not explicitly preempt state criminal laws regulating pilot conduct. Second, there is no field preemption because federal regulation, while extensive, is not so pervasive as to occupy the entire field; a specific federal regulation (14 C.F.R. § 91.17(c)) anticipates state law enforcement investigating violations of similar state laws. Third, there is no conflict preemption, as a pilot can comply with both state and federal laws, and the state law does not obstruct federal objectives. The court also held that the term 'operate' in the statute includes pre-flight preparations in the cockpit and that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. Finally, the court found that the statute created two separate offenses ('under the influence' and 'careless or reckless'), requiring jury unanimity. However, the trial court's failure to give a unanimity instruction was deemed harmless error because any juror who found Hughes was under the influence would necessarily have concluded his conduct was also careless and reckless.
Concurring - Schwartz, Senior Judge
Concurred in the conclusion only, without providing a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the authority of states to enforce criminal laws within heavily regulated federal domains like aviation, affirming that federal oversight does not create a shield against state prosecution for dangerous conduct. By broadly defining 'operate' to include pre-flight preparations, the ruling expands the scope of liability for pilots, holding them accountable from the moment they begin critical tasks in the cockpit. The case serves as a significant precedent illustrating the concurrent jurisdiction of federal and state governments in ensuring public safety. The court's treatment of the jury unanimity requirement as harmless error demonstrates how appellate courts may uphold convictions despite procedural flaws when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the alternate theories of culpability are factually intertwined.
