' 'l 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED . . ... ·· ........ "()FFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAU AVfATIONA~MINISTRATION JUN 1 0 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION AI)MINISTRA TION, ' ' .'-\: 1 · r ·, , r 

Complainant, •· · ' , · 

vs. ' .· .. '· 

TYLER PENNYWITT, 

Respondent. 

·:,,-· 

Docket No .. FAA<.WB-0716 

FAA Case No. 20d.SOI5bl28 

Judge Sullivan 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

The FAA hereby replies in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. 

Respondent's Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment discloses no 

genuine issues of material fact, and the FAA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Additionally, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is misplaced, and is 

due to be denied . 

. In the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment, the FAA presented evidence demonstrating 

that Respondent had committed the violations alleged in the Complaint, and that the penalty 

imposed was appropriate pursuant to the FAA's special emphasis enforcement program to 

combat the rising incidence of laser pointer interference with aircraft operations. In his Motion to 

·Dismiss and Response to .Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent does not deny that he \' ' .. - -

committed the violation, or present any evidence to contest the violation. Accordingly, the FAA 

is entitled to summary judgment as to the allegations in the Complaint Further, while 

Respondent asserts ~e~erail{'his ·personal .belief that a felony conviction is in and of itself 

1 
sufficient punishment for his conduct, he does not address the FAA's sanction policies or the 

aviation safety problems caused by his conduct. Respondent's conduct violated both criminal 

and civil laws. While Respondent may personally believe that the appropriate consequence for 

his actions is the lowest possible sanction for his criminal violation and no sanction at all for his 

civil violation, he has not presented any evidence or argument that supports such a drastic and 

lenient position. Accordingly, the FAA is entitled to summar; judgment as to the amount of 

sanction. 

Rather than addressing the fact of violation or presenting evidence with regards to 

sanction, the Response primarily focuses on Respondent's argument that the Double Jeopardy 

Clause bars this civil action. In support of his argument, Respondent cites to one case and 

presents a "factual" history of this proceeding and his criminal case. However, the one case he 

cites has been overturned, and the history would largely be irrelevant even if it was entirely 

accurate. 

Respondent relies on United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989). See Response at 4-5. 

However, the holding in Halper has since been overturned. In Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 

93 (1997), the Supreme Court noted that the opinion in Halper deviated from the Court's 

traditional Double Jeopardy analysis in two ways, described Halpern's holding as "ill 

considered" and its standard as "unworkable." Hudson, 522 U.S. at 101-02. The Double 

Jeopardy Clause only applies to consecutive criminal charges for the same conduct, and has no 

application here. 

Additionally, Respondent spends the majority of his Response presenting a history of his 

criminal and civil cases. In broad terms, Respondent describes how he and his attorney decided 

to deliberately ignore the civil proceedings against him, apparently in an effort to set up the 

2 
current meritless double jeopardy challenge, and complains that he has been denied a hearing 

and due process. Respondent also emphasizes what he seems to believe are sinister correlations 

between the processing of his criminal case and the processing of this case. As an initial matter, 

the majority of the detail provided is irrelevant. The application of the Double Jeopardy Clause 

does not turn on whether a civil investigation is coordinated in some way with a criminal 

investigation, and Respondent presents no argument or citation that it does. Further, as a factual 

matter, there was no coordination between the FAA's issuance of the Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, the Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, the Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, the Order Imposing Civil Penalty, 1 or the Complaint in this case. The undersigned was 

unaware of the status of Respondent's criminal case until the undersigned was contacted by 

Respondent's attorney for the first time after the issuance of the Order Imposing Civil Penalty? 

The Respondent complains that he has not been afforded due process or a hearing, but he is 

being afforded due process and the opportunity to be heard in this proceeding before the Judge. 

In sum, the Respondent has not provided any defense as to the allegations in the 

Complaint, has provided a minimal and insufficient defense as to the penalty amount, and the 

Double Jeopardy Clause has no applicability here. The FAA respectfully requests that the Judge 

grant Summary Judgment and affirm the Complaint in its entirety, including the sanction 

1 As explained in the letter accompanying the Complaint in this case, Respondent failed to successfully serve the 

request for a hearing on the undersigned. Accordingly, the FAA proceeded to issue an Order Imposing Civil Penalty. 

The undersigned did not learn that a hearing request had been filed until after the issuance of the Order, when 

Respondent's attorney for the ftrst time contacted the undersigned about this case. Even then, the Respondent's 

attorney did not infonn the undersigned that a request for hearing had been ftled. Rather, the contact from 

Respondent's criminal attorney prompted the undersigned to, for the ftrst time, contact the Assistant United States 

Attorney who was handling Respondent's criminal case. As a result of that contact, the undersigned was later 

provided with a Motion ftled by Respondent in his criminal case, which sought to dismiss the criminal case, and 

which attached as an exhibit the hearing request from this case. After confirming that the hearing request had been 

successfully filed with the docket clerk, the FAA issued the Complaint based on the hearing request, despite the 

service defects in that request. 2 See n.l. 

3 
amount, or, alternatively, grant partial Summary Judgment to the extent deemed appropriate. 

Additionally, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy grounds is due to be denied. 

cv ·~ Respectfully submitted this~ day of June, 2014. 

/{_ /~~-­ __ / =~ CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 

and Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss has been sent this date by the following 

methods: 

original and one copy via certified mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

one copy via certified mail: 

Tyler Pennywitt 

4483 Hanover Park Drive 

Jacksonville, FL 32224 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

fax: (202) 366-2131 

f!JUN i;.. 6 2014 

Dated 

5