Court Opinion

ID: 9701777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:37:34.142172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:29.220031
License: Public Domain

Eldridge, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Section 10-1002 of Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol.), Art. 1A, makes it unlawful “for any person to operate an aircraft . .. while under the influence of intoxicating liquor ... or to operate an aircraft ... in a careless or reckless manner ...” A violation of this section is generally punishable by fine or imprisonment under subsection (a) of § 10-1003. However, subsection (b) of § 10-1003 also provides for special sanctions for reckless operation of aircraft in addition to those provided for in subsection (a). It states, in part:
“(b) Special. — For any violation of § 10-1002 of this article, in addition to, or in lieu of, the penalties provided by subsection (a) of this section, or as a condition to the suspension of a sentence which may be imposed pursuant thereto, the court in its discretion may prohibit the- violator from operating an aircraft within the State for such *501period as it may determine but not to exceed one year. Violation of the duly imposed prohibition of the court may be treated as a separate offense under this section or as a contempt of court. . . .”
I agree with the majority that, in light of the absence of federal criminal penalties for reckless operation of aircraft, the sanctions of fine and imprisonment provided in subsection (a) would not appear to be preempted by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C. 1301 et seq. However, I cannot agree with the majority that there is no “conflict of constitutional dimension” between the federal act and subsection (b) of the State law which authorizes the court to prohibit an individual from operating an aircraft within the state even though that person may hold a valid federal airman’s certificate entitling him to operate an aircraft. This prohibition, which apparently would extend to both interstate as well as intrastate operations, is, in effect, a suspension of a federally issued airman’s certificate. As the issuance and suspension and revocation of a pilot’s license is a matter subject solely to federal regulation, I believe that § 10-1003 (b) is invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, United States Constitution Art. VI, Cl. 2. See Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corporation, 331 U. S. 218, 236, 67 S. Ct. 1146, 91 L. Ed. 1447 (1947).
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.) is authorized to “issue airman certificates specifying the capacity in which the holders thereof are authorized to serve as airmen in connection with aircraft.” 49 U.S.C. 1422. An airman’s certificate is required for operation of a civil aircraft in air commerce. 49 U.S.C. 1430 (a) (2). Air commerce is broadly defined as “interstate . .. air commerce ... or navigation of aircraft within the limits of any Federal airway or any operation or navigation of aircraft which directly affects, or which may endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce.” 49 U.S.C. 1301(4). The F.A.A, is empowered to reexamine any civil airman and, “ [i]f, as a result of any such ... reexamination, or if, as a result of any other investigation *502made by the Administrator, he determines that safety in air commerce ... and the public interest requires, the Administrator may issue an order . . . suspending, or revoking .. . any ... airman certificate . . . .” 49 U.S.C. 1429 (a).
It has been held that Congress has sought to insure the safety of civil aviation by extending federal safety regulations to virtually all civil aviation, including wholly intrastate flights. See Rosenhan v. United States, 131 F. 2d 932 (10th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318 U. S. 790, 63 S. Ct. 993, 87 L. Ed. 1156 (1943); United States v. Drumm, 55 F. Supp. 151 (D. Nev. 1944); see also Calkins, Federal-State Regulation of Aviation, 50 Va. L. Rev. 1386, 1395-1398 (1964). And in order to insure safety in civil aviation, Congress has delegated to the F.A.A. the responsibility of certifying pilots as competent to operate aircraft and has provided that the Administrator should revoke or suspend such certification when necessary in the interest of safety in air commerce.
Despite the fact that the F.A.A. has been delegated the authority by Congress to issue airman’s certificates necessary to operate aircraft in civil aviation, the majority holds that a state may prohibit a holder of such a license to operate an aircraft. In my view, the conclusion is inescapable that aSj state statute which would prohibit that which is expressly permitted by a federal license, issued pursuant to federal law without qualification, is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the federal law and therefore invalid under the supremacy clause. This was the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in Sperry v. State of Florida, 373 U. S. 379, 83 S. Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963). There, the state of Florida sought to enjoin a nonlawyer, registered to practice before the United States Patent Office by the Commissioner of Patents, from counseling clients and preparing patent applications in Florida on the ground that such activities constituted the unauthorized practice of law in violation of state law. The Supreme Court noted that the states have “a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the State” and could, in the absence of federal legislation, prohibit *503nonlawyers from engaging in the type of activities necessary for the preparation of patent applications. Id. at 383. However, Congress had by statute specifically authorized the Commissioner of Patents to prescribe regulations governing the representation of applicants before the Patent Office by “ ‘agents, attorneys, or other persons’ ” id. at 384. Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Commissioner, the petitioner was duly registered to represent applicants before the Patent Office. In holding that the state could not enjoin the petitioner from engaging in activities expressly authorized by federal law, the Supreme Court stated (373 U. S. at 385):
“The statute thus expressly permits the Commissioner to authorize practice before the Patent Office by non-lawyers, and the Commissioner has explicitly granted such authority. If the authorization is unqualified, then, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, Florida may not deny to those failing to meet its own qualifications the right to perform the functions within the scope of the federal authority. . . . ‘No State law can hinder or obstruct the free use of a license granted under an act of Congress.’ Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518, 566, 14 L. Ed. 249.”
Cf. Huron Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 447, 80 S. Ct. 813, 4 L.Ed.2d 852 (1960).
The fact that a state limitation on the exercise of the federally granted right is imposed only as a sanction incident to a conviction under an otherwise valid criminal statute does not alter this result under the Supremacy Clause. In Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, 348 U. S. 61, 75 S. Ct. 191, 99 L. Ed. 68 (1954), an interstate motor carrier doing business under a certificate of convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. 301 et seq., instituted an action to restrain Illinois officials from enforcing a statute providing for the suspension of the *504carrier’s right to use state highways for a period of one year for repeated violations of state imposed weight limitations. The Illinois Supreme Court had held that the statute was invalid insofar as it applied to the carrier’s interstate operations, conducted pursuant to its federal certificate, on the ground that it conflicted with the Federal Motor Carrier Act. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
The Supreme Court in Castle, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Black, reasoned that the Federal Motor Carrier Act was a “comprehensive plan for regulating the carriage of goods by motor truck in interstate commerce” greatly reducing the power of the states to regulate interstate carriers. 348 U. S. at 63. The Court pointed out that, although the states were free under the federal act to regulate the weight and distribution of loads carried in interstate trucks, nevertheless the federal government had the exclusive power to determine which carriers could operate in interstate commerce. Evidence of this exclusive power was found in the extensive conditions set forth in the act governing the issuance and revocation or suspension of certificates of necessity and convenience by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Noting that the suspension of a carrier’s right to use state highways “is the equivalent of a partial suspension of its federally granted certificate,” and given the comprehensive federal procedures governing the issuance of certificates of convenience and necessity, the Supreme Court said that “it would be odd if a state could take action amounting to a suspension or revocation of an interstate carrier’s commission-granted right to operate.” Id. at 64. In response to the contention that without the power to suspend a carrier’s right to use state highways, the state could not effectively enforce otherwise valid regulatory statutes, the Supreme Court stated (id. at 64-65j:
“It is urged that without power to impose punishment by suspension states will be without appropriate remedies to enforce their laws against recalcitrant motor carriers. We are not persuaded, however, that the conventional forms of punishment are inadequate to protect states from *505overweighted or improperly loaded motor trucks. Moreover, a Commission regulation requires motor carriers to abide by valid state highway regulations. And as previously pointed out, the Commission can revoke in whole or in part certificates of motor carriers which willfully refuse to comply with any lawful regulation of the Commission. If, therefore, motor carriers persistently and repeatedly violate the laws of a state, we know of no reason why the Commission may not protect the state’s interest, either on the Commission’s own initiative or on complaint of the state.”
I believe that Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, supra, is controlling. The regulation of safety along highways has traditionally been viewed as an area of local concern, with the states being permitted great latitude in the absence of federal regulations. See South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177, 58 S. Ct. 510, 82 L. Ed. 734 (1938). However, even in this area, the state cannot interfere with the exercise of a federal right. Aviation safety, on the other hand, is an area which, because of its nature, can only be adequately regulated through national control. As Mr. Justice Jackson said in Northwest Airlines v. State of Minnesota, 322 U. S. 292, 303, 64 S. Ct. 950, 88 L. Ed. 1283 (1944) (concurring opinion):
“Air as an element in which to navigate is even more inevitably federalized by the commerce clause than is navigable water. Local exactions and barriers to free transit in the air would neutralize its indifference to space and its conquest of time.
“Congress has recognized the national responsibility for regulating air commerce. Federal control is intensive and exclusive. Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal *506commands. The moment a ship taxis onto a runway it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls. It takes off only by instruction from the control tower, it travels on prescribed beams, it may be diverted from its intended landing, and it obeys signals and orders. Its privileges, rights, and protection, so far as transit is concerned, it owes to the Federal Government alone and not to any state government.”
If the states are precluded from effectively revoking or suspending a federal license through enforcement of criminal statutes in an area such as highway safety, where extensive state regulation has historically been permitted, then surely they may not do so in an area requiring almost exclusive federal control.
The Federal Aviation Act, like the statutory scheme considered in Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, supra, provides for a comprehensive federal licensing procedure governing the issuance and the revocation or suspension of the federal license. As there, because of its comprehensive nature, this regulation is exclusive. And as discussed above, this regulation extends to intrastate as well as interstate activities, unlike the regulatory scheme involved in Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, supra. Given this exclusive and even more comprehensive federal regulation, I do not believe that the state, either directly or indirectly, as an incident to enforcement of valid regulatory statutes as in Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, supra, may hinder the exercise of a right granted pursuant to a federal statute. Although the state does have an interest in protecting its citizens from the reckless operation of aircraft, this interest can be protected through the more traditional sanctions of fines and imprisonment as provided for in § 10-1003 (a). Moreover, as the record in this case demonstrates, the Federal Aviation Administration can revoke or suspend an airman’s certificate if necessary to protect the public. The conduct prohibited by § 10-1002 is the same as that prohibited by the Federal Aviation Regulations. I cannot see why this is *507not sufficient to protect the state's interest without interference in the comprehensive and otherwise uniform federal regulatory scheme.
For these reasons, I would hold that subsection (b) of § 104008 of the Maryland act is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and that, therefore, the circuit court had no authority to prohibit the defendant from operating an aircraft in this state for one year.1
Judge Smith has authorized me to state that he joins in the views expressed herein.

. An additional question would be presented in this case if we were reviewing the sentence originally imposed by the District Court rather than the sentence imposed by the circuit court. The circuit court did not place the defendant on probation but directly imposed the prohibition against flying pursuant to the purported authority set forth in subsection (b) of § 10-1003. As explained above, I believe that this statutory provision is unconstitutional. However, the District Court had made the prohibition against operation of an aircraft a condition of probation. While it is true that criminal courts generally have wide discretion in imposing reasonable conditions of probation, it is recognized that the imposition of certain conditions is beyond the power of the courts. See Bird v. State, 231 Md. 432, 190 A. 2d 804 (1963); United States v. Pastore, 537 F. 2d 675 (2d Cir. 1976) (Lumbard, J., concurring); Best and Birzon, Conditions of Probation, 51 Geo. L. J. 809 (1963); Note, Judicial Review of Probation Conditions, 67 Colum. L. Rev. 181 ■ (1967). It is doubtful whether a state imposed prohibition against operating an aircraft pursuant to a federal license, which could not be imposed directly as a sanction for violation of a criminal statute, could be imposed indirectly as a condition of probation. However, because we are reviewing the sentence of the circuit court following a de novo appeal instead of the sentence of the District Court, the question of whether or not a prohibition against operation of an aircraft could be imposed as a condition of probation is not presented.