MvSr'ORTATIOi- : vL . I '^ \ rK'\:Q::T\rr' : UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A r n, " , ; r 3 •- . 3, ^ BEFOR E TH E jji^ f ' ' ' U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N '^ ' ^ OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D C

MAR Y WOOTTE N ^ «« • I ^ g ^ ^ 

### •APf ? - 5 z m FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09EA001 0 f-ipAntf,. ^ ^ ^ (Civi l Penalty Action ) ' "^^KIN G OOCKE T DM S NO . FAA-2009-007 7

COMPLAINANT' S MEMORANDU M O F LA W COME S NO W th e Complainant , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , b y an d throug h it s designate dan dauthorize drepresentative , th e Regiona l Counse l for th e Easter n Region , an d hi s designate dan dauthorize drepresentatives , pursuan t t o th e Rule s o f

Practic e i n FA A Civi l Penalty Action s (herei n th e "Rules") , [1 4 C.F.R . part 13], t o submi t

amemorandu mo f

la w o n th e issu e o f th e applicability o f

inten t i n 4 9 U.S.C . §46318 . I t i s provide di n 4 9 U.S.C . §46318(a) , a s follows : Genera l Rul e - A n individua l wh o physicall y assault s o r

threaten s t o physicall y assaul t amembe r

o f th e fligh t cre w o r cabi n cre w o f acivi l aircraf

t o r an y othe r

individua l o n th e aircraft , o r take s a n actio n tha t

pose s a n imminen t threa t t o th e safet

y o f th e aircraf

t o r othe r individual s o n th e aircraf t i s liabl e t o th e Unite d State s for acivi l penalt y o f

not mor e tha n $25,000 . Th e Administrato r

ha s hel d tha t

th e ter m"assault " a s use d i n 1 4 C.F.R . §91.11 , include s th e intentiona l tort s o f

assaul t an d battery . I n th e Matte r o f Conger , FA A Orde r

No . 2007- 8 (2007) , citin g I n th e Matte r o f Benerv . FA A Orde r

No . 2003- 9 at

5 (2003) ; I n th e Matte r

o fMayer . FA A Orde r No . 1997-1 2 at

9 (1997) ; I n th e Matte r

o f Ignatov , FA A Orde r

No . 1996- 6 at 8- 9 (1996) . Assau h i s als o use di n 1 4 C.F.R . §121.580 , whic h i s substantivel y identica l t o Sectio n 91.11 , excep t

tha t Sectio n 121.58 0 applie s onl y t o prohibite d action s o f passenger s o n boar dPar t

12 1 ai r carriers . (Se e 6 4 Fed . Reg . 107 6 (Januar y 7 , 1999 ) (i n whic h th e FA A explaine dtha t

th e agenc y wa s addin g aprovisio n mirrorin g Sectio n 91.1 1 t o Part 12 1 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations. ) Th e Administrato r hel d tha t Conge r violate d 4 9 U.S.C . §4631 8 becaus e sh e assaulte dth e fligh t attendan t

b y pullin g o n th e flight

attendant' s apro n an d whippin g he r around(a n unwante dtouching) , an d b y he r action s tha t

cause d th e flight

attendan t

"t o fea r furthe r harmfii l o r

offensiv e contact. " (Initia l Decisio n at 11. ) Th e Administrato r

deliberate d o n th e issu e o f inten t an d sciente r

i n anothe r

case . I n th e Matte r o f Bengrv . FA A Orde r

No ; 2003- 9 (2003) . O n appeal , responden t argue d tha t

h e lacke d th e necessar y intent , o r

scienter , t o assaul t

acrewmembe r

becaus e h e di d not

kno w tha t

th e perso n whos e ar mh e grabbe dwa s acrewmember . N o previou s case s addresse d th e issu e o f whethe r sciente r i s a n elemen t

o f aviolatio n o f

Sectio n 91.11 . Th e Administrato r foun d tha t

ther e ar e case s tha t

addres s whethe r

sciente r i s require d vinde

r astatut e prohibitin g assault s o n federa l officers . I n suc h cases , th e court s hav e hel d tha t i t i s uimecessary t o prov e tha t a n assailan t

kne w th e victi mwa s afedera l officer . See , e.g. , Unite d State s v . Goldson . 95 4 F.2 d 51,5 4 (2n d Cir . 1992) ; Bennet t

v . Unite dStates . 28 5 F.2 d 567 , 570-7 1 (5th Cir . 1960) . Accordin g t o th e court i n Unite dState s v . Young . 46 4 F.2 d160 , 16 3 (5th Cir . 1972) , whe n th e defendan t intend s t o assau h th e victi man dha s n o lega l excus e suc h a s self-defense , "knowledg e o f th e official capacit y o f

th e victi mi s invariabl y uimecessary ; th e assailan t takes hi s victi ma s h e finds him. " Th e Administrato r

hel dtha t knowledg e o f

th e crewmember' s identit y i s no t an elemen t

o f aviolatio no f

1 4 C.F.R . § 91.11 . Thi s regulatio n provides , i n relevan t part , that" [ n] o perso n ma y assault.. . acrewmembe

r i n th e performanc e o f

th e crewmember' s dutie s ... . " Th e Administrator

hel d tha t Sectio n 91.1 1 doe s no t

contain a n exemptio n fo

r assailant s wh

o d o no t kno w the y ar e assaultin g acrewmember , an

dtha t all th e regulatio n require s i s th e inten t to assault , no t

th e inten t to assault acrevraiembe

r i n particular . I n severa l cases , th e Administrator

ha s hel dtha

t th e ter m"assault " a s use di

n Sectio n 91.1 1 shoul db e interprete dto mea n bot h abattery , meanin g a

n intentiona

l harmfii l o r offensive physica l contact , a s well a s a

n assault , meanin g intentiona l act s causin g apprehensio n o f such a harmfiil o r offensive contact . I

n th e Matte

r of Ignatov , FA

A Orde r No . 1996- 6 a

t 8- 9 (1996) . Th

e Administrator

explained : "Commo n sens e demand s tha t th e ter m"assault " a s use di n Sectio n 91.1 1 b e rea

dto include bot

h assault andbattery . To holdotherwis e woul dresult i n th e illogica

l andundesirabl e resul t

tha t shakin g one' s fist

vmde r acrewmember' s nos e woul dconstitut e a n assaul t unde r Sectio n 91.11 , but

actually hittin g th e crewmembe r woul dnot. " For example , in on e cas e th e Administrato r uphel dthe la

w judge' s holdin g tha

t responden t shove dth e flight

attendant , thereb y committin g abattery , which i s aviolatio n of Sectio n 91.11 , andtha

t al l th e witnesse s agree don th e ke y point tha t responden

t grabbe d an

d pushe d th e flight

attendant . I

n th e Matte

r of Houtenbos , FA

A Orde r No . 2002 . I n anothe r case , th e la

w judg e hel dtha

t respondent' s act

of grippin g th e flight

attendant' s shoulde r andthe n tightenin g hi s gri p when she tol dhi mt o remov e hi s han dconstitute d a n assault . Th

e la w judg e base dthi s determinatio n upo n hi s finding tha t respondent

ha dengage d in adeliberat

e unwante dan

doffensive touching . Responden t argue dtha

t th e requisit

e inten t to assault wa s lackin g becaus e th e la w judg e foun

dtha t responden

t di dno t threaten , intimidate , o

rinterfer

e wit h th e flight

attendant . The la

w judge , however , expressly foun dtha t responden

t assaulte dth e flight

attendan t whe n h e deliberately grippe dhe r shoulder , an

dwhe n h e subsequently tightene dhi s gri p i n respons e to he

r reques t tha t he remov e hi s hand . Th

e la w judg e als o foun dtha t respondent' s grippin g of

th e flight attendant' s shoulde

r intimidate dan

dfrightened her , an d tha t he r fea r o f responden

t wa s reasonabl e unde

r th e circumstances . Unwanted touchin g constitute s assault

unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.11 , a s doe s inducin g reasonabl e fea r i n another , citin g I

n th e Matte r o f Mayer , FA

A Orde r No . 97-1 2 a

t 9 (1997) . Thus , th e Administrator hel dtha t th e la w judg e di dno t

er r i n finding tha

t responden

t committe da

n assault o n th e flight

attendant . I

n th e Matte r of Gotbetter , FA

A Orde r No . 2000-1 7 (2000) . I n applyin g thes e lega

l principles , Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar

dC . Goodv/i

n ha s foim dtha t 4 9 U.S.C . §4631 8 i s violate dwhen a n individua

l assault s amembe

r o f aflight crew , andtha t complainan

t prove dtha

t responden

t assaulte daflight

attendan t in violatio n of

thi s statut e whe n sh e tapped , or

"popped, " th e flight

attendan t i n th e face . I

n th e Matte

r o f Tahaira . FA A Docke t No . CP09NM0006 , Initia l Decision . Th

e la w judg e foun

dtha t responden

t als o committe da

n assault whe n sh e grabbedan

dyankedth e flight

attendant' s wris t

or forearm . Citin g th e Administrator' s statemen t tha t a n assault i s a n unwante dtouchin g (I

n th e Matte

r o f Gotbetter . FA A Orde r No . 2000-1 7 (2000)) , i n th e context o f thi s case , "popping, " o r

tapping , th e flight attendan t i n the fac e plainly constitute da n assault . S o di drespondent' s actio n in forcefull y grabbin g andjerkin g forwar dth e flight

attendant' s wris t

andforearm . Th e la

w judg e hel d tha

t thes e action s wer

e attempt s to commi

t abattery ; they als o eac h constitute dthreat s to injur e th e flight attendant , whic h cause dhe r reasonably to fea

r present bodily harm . The la

w judg e foun

d als o in bot

h instance s tha

t actua l contac t took place . Th e la

w judg e foun

dtha t respondent' saction s describe dabov e wer e unwante dan

doffensive ; he

r gra b o f th e flight attendant' s forear

m o r wris t wa s harmfu

l a s well . Th e la

w judg e foun

dthes e action s wer

e deliberat e andintentional , andtha t whethe r responden

t ma y o r ma y no t hav e intende dto caus e har mi s irrelevan

t t o th e violation ; wha

t matter s i s tha

t she full y intende dth e assault . I n anothe r cas e befor

e Judg e Goodwin (I

n th e Matte

r o f Schwager , FA

A Docke t No . CP06SW0010 , Initia

l Decision) , h

e foun dtha t complainan

t prove dtha

t responden

t assaulte d a flight attendan t i n violatio n o f

4 9 U.S.C . §46318 . The la w judg e hel dtha

t a n assault i s a n unwante dtouching , again citin g Gotbetter , above . Respondent' s touchin g th e flight attendan t plainly constitute da

n assault . Responden

t als o committe da

n assault by action s which cause d the flight attendan t t o fea r furthe r harmfu l o r offensive contact , citin g Ignatov , above a t p . 8 , an d Mayer , abov e a

t p . 9 .Complainan t reserve s th e righ t

t o supplemen t

it s memorandu ma s necessary . Respectfiill y submitted , ALFRE D R . JOHNSON , JR . Regiona l Counse l By: . Christia n Leweren z Attorne y Tel : (718 ) 553-327 3 Fax:(718)995-569 9

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e copie s o f

Complainant' s Memorandu mo f La w wa s sen t

b y Federa l Expres s t o th e following : Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mE12-32 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : 202-366-214 2 Fax : 202-366-753 6 Rober t Waldman , Esq . La w Offic e o f

Rober t Henry Waldma n 11 3 Ridgel y Avenu e Annapolis , M D 2140 1 Tel : 410-268-505 0 Fax:410-269-154 4

Dated : Christia n Leweren z Attorne y