05/05/201 1 15:5 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S IgOOI/OO B



# HECBlMEh UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A BEFOR E TH E U.S . DEPARTMENT O F TRANSPORTATIO N HA Y 5 ~ 23:<i. 

# 'Zi^of^:^ ' • BEARIN G DOCKE T I n Th e Mailer O f MARYWOOTTE N 'i:' : FAA DOCKE T NO . CP09EA001 0 " ' ~^co^ 5 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) a • '^d>' ^ DM S NO . FAA-2009-007 7 P COMPLAINANT

^ S MEMORANDUM O F LA W COME S NO W th e Complainant , tti e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , by an dthroug h it s designate dan dauthorize drepresentative , th e Regiona l Counse l fo

r th e Easter

n Region , an dhi s designate dan dauthorize drepresentatives ^ pursuan t to th e Rule s o f

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

amemorandu mo f

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

y o f intent 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 ; General 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 flight cre w o r cabi n cre w o f acivi l aircraf

t o r any other individual o n th e aircraft , o r take s a n actio n tha t

pose s aj i imminen t threat 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 dState s fo r acivi l penalty o f

no t mor e than $25,000 . Th e Administrato r

ha s hel dtha

t th e term"assault " a s use di n 1 4 C.F.R . §91.11 , include s th e intentional tort s o f

assaul t an dbattery . I n th e Maile r o f Conger . FAA Orde r

No . 2007- 8 (2007) , citin g In th e Matte r o f Bengry . FAA Orde r

No . 2003- 9 at

5 (2003) ; I n ih e Matte r

o f05/05/201 1 15:5 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * QM S glO02/OO G

Mayer . FA

A Orde r No . 1997-1 2 a

t 9 (1997) ; I

n th e Matter

o f lenatov . FA A Orde r

No . 1996- 6 a

t 8- 9 (1996) . Assaul t

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

that Sectio n 121.58 0 applie s onl y t o prohibite daction s o f passenger s o n boar dPart

12 1 ai r carriers . {Se

e 6 4 Fed . Reg . 107 6 (Januar y 7 , 1999 ) (i n whic h th e FAA 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 Federal Aviatio n Regulations. ) Th e Administrato r hel dthat Conge r violate d4 9 U.S.C . §4631 8 becaus e sh e assaulte dth e flight attendan t b y pullin g o n th e flight

attendant' s apro n an

dwhippin g he r aroun d(a

n unwante dtouching) , an db y he r action s tha t

cause dth e flight

attendan t "t o fea r further harmfti l o r

offensiv e contact. " (Initial Decisio n a t 11. ) Th e Administrato r

deliberate do n th e issu e o f inten t an dsciente r

i n anothe r

case . In th e Matte r o f Bengrv . FA

A Orde r No . 2003- 9 (2003) . O n appeal , responden t argue dtha

t h e lacke d th e necessar

y intent , o r

scienter , to assaul t

acrewmember

becaus e h e di dnot

kno w tha t

th e perso n whos e ar

mh e grabbe dwa s acrewmember . N o previou s case s addresse dth e issu e o f whethe r sciente r i s an elemen t

o f aviolatio n o f

Sectio n 91.11 . Th e Admini.strator foun dtha t ther e ar e case s that

addres s whethe r

sciente r i s require dunde r

astatut e prohibitin g assault s o n federa l officers . In suc h cases , th e court s hav e hel dtha t it i s unnecessar

y to prov e tha

t an assailan t

kne w th e victi mwa s afedera

l officer . See , e.g. . Unite dState s v . Goldson . 95 4 F.2 d51,5 4 (2n dCir . 1992) ; Hennct

t v . Unite dStates . 28 5 F.2 d567 , 570-7 1 (5t h Cir . 1960) . Accordin g t o th e court i n Unite dStale s v . Young . 46 4 F.2 d160 , 16 3 (5t h Cir . 1972) , whe n th e defendan t intend s t o assauh th e victi man dha s n o lega l excus e suc h a s self-defense , "knowledg e o f th e officia

l capacit y o f th e victi mi s invariabl y unnecessary ; th e assailan t take s hi s victi ma s h e finds him. " Th e Administrato r

hel dthat knowledg e o f

th e crewmember' s identity i s no t a n clemen t o f aviolatio n05/05/201 1 15:5 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0003/00 6

o 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 as.<?ault.. . acrewmembe r

i n th e performanc e o f

th e crewmember' s dutie s .... " Th e Administrato r hel dtha t Sectio n 91.1 1 doe s no t

contai n an exemptio n for assailant s wh o d o no t

kno w the y ar e assaultin g acrewiTiembcr , an dtha

t al l th e regulatio n require s i s th e inten t t o assauh , no t

th e inten t t o assaul t acrewmembe r

in particular . I n several cases , th e Administrato r ha s hel dtha t

th e ten n "assault " a s use di n Sectio n 91.1 1 shoul db e interprete dt o mea n bot h abattery , meanin g a

n intentiona l harmfu l o r

offensiv e physical contact , a s wel l a s a n assault , meanin g intentional act s causin g apprehensio n o f suc h a harmfu l o r

offensiv e contact . I n th e Matte r o f Ignatov . FAA Orde r

No . 1996- 6 at

8- 9 (1996) . Th e Administrato r

explained : "Commo n sens e demand s that th e terr a"assault " a s use di n Sectio n 91.1 1 b e rea dt

o includ e both assaul t

an dbattery . T o hol dotherwis e woul dresul t i n th e illogica l an dundesirabl e resul t

that shakin g one' s fis t

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

actuall y hittin g th e crewmembe r woul dnot. " For example , i n on e ca.se th e Administrato r uphel dth e law judge' s holdin g tha t responden t

shove dth e flight

attendant , thereb y committin g abattery , whic h i s aviolatio n (^ f Sectio n 91.11 , an dtha t

all th e witnesse s agree don th e key poin t tha t responden t

grabbe dan d pushe dth e flight

attendan t In th e Matte r

o f Houtenbo^; , FAA Orde r

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

w judg e hel dthat

respondent' s ac t

o f grippin g th e flight

attendant' s shoidde r an dthe n tightenin g hi s gri p whe n sh e tol dhh n t o remov e hi s han dconstitute da n assault . Th e law judg e base dthi s determinatio n upo n hi s findin g tha t responden t

ha dengage d i n adeliberat e unwante dan doffensiv e touching . Responden t argue dtha t

th e requisit e inten t

t o assaul t wa s lackin g becaus e th e la w judg e foun dtha t

responden t

di dno t threaten , intimidate , o r05/05/201 1 15:5 2 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS @1004/00 G

interfere wit

h th e flight

attendant . Th e la w judge , however , expressl y foun dtha t responden t assaulte dth e flight

attendan t

whe n he deliberatel y grippe dhe r shoulder , an dwhe n h e subsequentl y tightene dhi s gri p i n respons e t o he r reques t tha t h e remov e hi s hand . Th e law judg e als o foundthat

respondent' s grippin g o f

th e flight attendant' s shoulde r

intimidate dan dfrightene d her , an dtha t

he r fea r o f responden t

wa s reasonabl e under

th e circumstances . Unwante dtouchin g constitute s assaul t

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

o f Mavcr . FAA Order

No . 97-1 2 at

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

er r i n finding tha t

responden t

committe dan as.saul

t o n th e flight

attendant . I n th e Matte r o f Gotbetter . FAA Order

No . 2000-1 7 (2000) . h i applyin g thes e lega

l principles . Administrativ e Law Judg e RichardC . Goodwi n ha^ j foun dtha t

4 9 U.S.C . §4631 8 i s violate dwhe n an individual assault s amembe r o f aflight crew , an dthat complainan t

prove dtha t

responden t

assaulte daflight

attendan t i n violatio n o f

thi s statut e whe n sh e tapped , o r "popped, " th e flight

attendan t i n th e face . I n th e Matte r o f Tahaira . FAA Docke t

No . CP09NM0006 , biitial Decision . Th e la w judg e foun dthat responden t

als o committe da

n assaul t whe n sh e grabbe dandyanke dth e flight attendant' s wris t

o r forearm . Citin g th e Administrator' s statemen t that a n assaul t i s a n unwante dtouchin g fi n th e Matte r o f Gotbetter . FA A Orde r

No . 2000-1 7 (2000)) , i n th e contex t o f thi s case , "popping, " o r

tapping , th e fhght attendan t in th e fac e plainl y constitute dan assault . S o di drespondent' s actio n i n forcefully grabbin g an djerkin g forwar dth e flight

attendant' s wris t

an dforearm . Th e law judg e hel dtlia t thes e action s were attempt s t o commi t abattery ; the y als o eac h constitute dthreat s to injure th e flight attendant , whic h cause dhe r reasonabl y t o fea

r presen t bodil y harm . Th e la w judg e foun d als o i n bot

h instance s tha

t actua l contac t too k place . Th e la

w judg e foun dthat

respondent' s05/05/201 1 15:5 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S gl005/00 G

action 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 law judg e foun dthes e action s wer e deliberat e an dintentional , an dtha t whether responden t

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

t o th e violation ; what

matter s i s tha t

sh e full y intende dth e assault . I n anothe r

cas e before Judg e Goodwi n (I n th e Matte r o f Schwaeer . FAA Docke t No . CP06SWOOIO , Initia l Decision) , h e foundtha 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 . Th e law judg e hel dtha t an assaul t

i s a n unwante dtouching , agai n citin g Gotbetter , above . Respondent' s touchin g th e flight attendan t plainl y constitute da

n assaul t Responden t

als o committe da

n assaul t b y action s whic h cause dth e flight attendan t t o fea r fiirthe r harmfu l o r

offensiv e contact , citin g Ignatov , abov e a t p . 8 , an d Mayer , abov e a

t p . 9 ,05/05/201 1 15:5 2 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS glOOG/OO G

Complainan t

reserve s th e right

t o supplemen t

it s memorandu ma s necessary . Respectfull y submitted , ALFRE D R . JOHNSON , JR . Regiona l Counse l

JhfTstia n L ^ Attorne y Tel ; (718 ) 553-327 3 Fax:(718)995-569 9

CERTIFICATE 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 Law wa s sen t

b y Federa l Expres.' : t o th e following ; Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yoder Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mEl2-32 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 Robert Waldman , Esq . Law Offic e o f

Robert Henr y Waldman 11 3 Ridgel y Avenu e Annapolis , M D 2140 1 Tel : 410-268-505 0 Fax:410-269-154 4

Date d 

# -.^QeTM^! ^ en z