Dear Student,
Welcome to The Law School Playbook! I’m Halle Hara, a professor of academic success and personal skills coach to law students and attorneys. I’m glad you’re here! We are going to pick up where we left off in the last episode, where a commercial airline pilot named Sean Fitzgerald showed up for work “rip-roaring drunk” and engaged in pre-flight work before he was arrested. The statute he is alleged to have violated is 18 U.S.C. § 343, and we are now at step 3, which requires us to look at the language of the statute itself and methodically break it down.
To begin, let’s do a scan to look for the specific words we discussed, such as conjunctions, exceptions, and mandatory or permissive words. Let’s also look for punctuation. Here’s what jumped out at me:
Whoever operates or directs the operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), shall be imprisoned not more than fifteen years or fined under this title, or both.
That’s a lot of “ors.” Let’s use those to help us to break down the statute. We might do that by breaking it down into specific requirements, or elements.
Requirement 1. If a person [now there’s two choices, so let’s separate them out]:
Operates a common carrier OR
Directs the operation of a common carrier
[you don’t need both, one will suffice]
Requirement 2. AND
Is under the influence of alcohol OR
Is under any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) [I’m thinking that we don’t need to look that up, but if we weren’t sure it were drugs or alcohol, we’d need to check out that statute]
Outcome. [Here’s where we might use an if/then statement] If requirement 1 AND requirement 2 are satisfied, then the person shall be:
Imprisoned, but not more than fifteen years OR
fined under this title OR
both.
So there are three options for someone who meets requirements 1 and 2:
imprisonment up to 15 years; OR
a fine; OR
imprisonment up to 15 years AND a fine.
To try to determine whether Fitzgerald can be found guilty under the statute, let’s think about the parts of the statute that might be most relevant to him:
Requirement 1. If a person [now there’s two choices, so let’s separate them out]:
o Operates a common carrier OR
o Directs the operation of a common carrier
From the facts we have, he didn’t direct anyone to do anything, so the issue appears to be whether his pre-flight actions were sufficient to constitute operating a common carrier
Requirement 2. AND
o is under the influence of alcohol; let’s recall that under § 344, an individual with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or more shall be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol.
o We’ll dismiss this second option because there is nothing to suggest that Fitzgerald was under the influence of any controlled substance.
o Outcome. We don’t to worry about this now, because we aren’t sure if he satisfies requirement one: whether he operated a common carrier. And because we broke the statute down, we know that he needs to satisfy requirement 1 AND requirement 2 before he will be given an outcome.
As to requirement 2, we need to be sure that he a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or more.
If both are requirement 1 and requirement 2 are not satisfied, there is no violation of the statute.
Based on the work we have done so far:
(1) We need to know what it means to operate a common carrier and(2) We need to determine if Fitzgerald had a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or more.
Point (2), seems easier to tackle so we’ll handle that first. Let’s examine some additional facts. In addition to what I set forth previously, we also know the following:
When the police arrived, they found Fitzgerald in the cockpit, still tinkering with the airplane’s controls. The police ran Fitzgerald through a visual sobriety test, which Fitzgerald promptly failed. Two subsequent breath tests confirmed what his bloodshot eyes suggested: Fitzgerald was very drunk, registering a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.301% and 0.312%. Fitzgerald was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for further examination; a blood test 90 minutes later revealed a 0.343% BAC.
Because a BAC of .10% gives rise to a presumption of intoxication under the statute, we know that Fitzgerald indeed satisfied requirement 2 by being under the influence of alcohol as defined in the statute.
That leaves us with the more difficult question: whether Fitzgerald’s actions were such that he operated the common carrier. We’ll examine step 4 in the next episode to answer this question by looking for the statute’s meaning using the text and determining if the language is ambiguous or vague.
If would you like to read this episode, get suggestions for further reading, or to request individual coaching with me, please visit my website at www.lawschoolplaybook.com.
As always, do your best, and I’ll be rooting for you!
References and Further Reading
Christine Coughlin, et al., A Lawyer Writes: A Practical Guide to Legal Analysis 34–35 (2d ed. 2013).
Forbes Quotes, Thoughts on the Business of Life. https://www.forbes.com/quotes/8757/ (accessed June 29, 2019).
Georgetown University Law Center: A Guide to Reading, Interpreting and Applying Statutes (2017). https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/A-Guide-to-Reading-Interpreting-and-Applying-Statutes-1.pdf.
Jane Bloom Grisé, Critical Reading for Success in Law School and Beyond 243–251 (2017).
Sarah Landrum, Law School Success: Tips for Reading Statutes (Feb. 13, 2015). https://lawschoolacademicsuccess.com/2015/02/03/statutory-interpretation/.
Ruth Ann McKinney, Reading Like a Lawyer: Time-Saving Strategies for Reading Law Like an Expert 220–224, 230–233 (2d ed. 2012).
Deborah Maranville, Teaching Statute Reading Basics in a First Year Doctrinal Course: A “Handout” and Suggested Exercises, Law Teacher, Inst. For Law. Sch. Teaching 18–20 (Spring 2013).
Ira Nathenson, How to Read a Rule or Statute (Sept. 12, 2014). https://www.nathenson.org/courses/civpro/resources/how-to-read-a-rule-or-statute/.
Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning 151–158 (2009).
Chomwa Shikati, The Price You Will Have To Pay For Your Success, Medium (Nov. 28, 2017). https://medium.com/w-i-t/the-price-you-will-have-to-pay-for-your-success-7b0bd97e378f.
Daniel Victor, “Oxford Comma Dispute Is Settled as Maine Drivers Get $5 Million,” New York Times (Feb. 9, 2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html.