Home
Menu
904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 860.13 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 860.13 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 860.13

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 860
OFFENSES CONCERNING AIRCRAFT, MOTOR VEHICLES, VESSELS, AND RAILROADS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 860.13
860.13 Operation of aircraft while intoxicated or in careless or reckless manner; penalty.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person:
(a) To operate an aircraft in the air or on the ground or water while under the influence of:
1. Alcoholic beverages;
2. Any substance controlled under chapter 893;
3. Any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111; or
(b) To operate an aircraft in the air or on the ground or water in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(2) In any prosecution charging careless or reckless operation of aircraft in violation of this section, the court, in determining whether the operation was careless or reckless, shall consider the standards for safe operation of aircraft as prescribed by federal statutes or regulations governing aeronautics.
(3) Violation of this section shall constitute a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) It shall be the duty of any court in which there is a conviction for violation of this statute to report such conviction to the Federal Aviation Administration for its guidance and information with respect to the pilot’s certificate.
History.ss. 1-4, ch. 25259, 1949; s. 1096, ch. 71-136; ss. 1, 2A, ch. 71-282; s. 32, ch. 73-331; s. 5, ch. 83-187; s. 15, ch. 2010-117.

F.S. 860.13 on Google Scholar

F.S. 860.13 on Casetext

Amendments to 860.13


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 860.13
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S860.13 1a - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RECKLESS OPR AIRCRAFT WHILE UND THE INFLUENCE - F: T
S860.13 1b - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - OPERATE AIRCRAFT IN A CARELESS RECKLESS MANNER - F: T



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All
  1. (b) A violation of s. 316.027(2), s. 316.193, s. 316.1935, s. 327.35(1), s. 782.071(1)(b), or s. 860.13(1)(a) which results in physical injury or death.
    PAGE 548
  2. Latham v. State

    185 So. 3d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times
    [a] violation of s. 316.193, s. 316.027(1), s. 327.35(1), s. 782.071(1)(b), or s. 860.13(1)(a) which results in physical injury or death; however, an act involving the operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft which results in injury or death does not constitute a crime for the purpose of this chapter unless the injury or death was intentionally inflicted through the use of the vehicle, boat, or aircraft.
    PAGE 691
  3. Labs. v. Mylan Pharm

    15 So. 3d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    enacted"); Hughes v. State, 943 So.2d 176, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that, because section 860.13 governing operation of aircraft while intoxicated was last reenacted without any amendments in 1983

  4. In reaching this conclusion we note that the Third District Court's determination that the state criminal statute (section 860.13) concerns a different subject matter than the applicable federal regulations ( 14 C.F.R. parts 65, 121 and 135), finds support in the Eleventh Circuit's decision which, although it did not resolve this preemption question on the merits, did observe that the preemption language of Appendix I may not encompass Florida Statute section 860.13 because "it is not absolutely clear that the challenged Florida statutes cover the same subject matter" as the federal regulations. 377 F.3d at 1273.
    PAGE 15
  5. Hughes v. State

    943 So. 2d 176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    In Carswell, we found that section 860.13( 2) does incorporate the federal standards for the safe operations of aircraft. Carswell, 557 So.2d at 184. As it was undisputed in Carswell that the federal standards relied upon in that case existed at the time of section 860.13's enactment, we concluded that there was no improper delegation of legislative power. Id. In the instant case, however, the parties dispute whether the federal standards relied upon in this case existed at the time that section 860.13 was reenacted in 1983. The federal standards referred to in the instant case are found in 14 C.F.R. § 91.17(a), which prohibit a crewmember from acting in that capacity within eight hours of consuming any alcoholic beverage or with a blood alcohol level of .04 percent or higher. In 1983, the federal regulations clearly prohibited acting as a crewmember within eight hours of consuming alcohol. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.11. However, the prohibition against acting as a crewmember with a blood alcohol level of .04 percent or higher, did not exist in 1983. Thus, for section 860.13( 2) to adopt and include the federal regulation prohibiting acting as a crew…
  6. Cloyd v. State

    943 So. 2d 149 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times
    In Carswell, we found that section 860.13( 2) does incorporate the federal standards for the safe operations of aircraft. Carswell, 557 So.2d at 184. As it was undisputed in Carswell that the federal standards relied upon in that case existed at the time of section 860.13's enactment, we concluded that there was no improper delegation of legislative power. Id. In the instant case, however, the parties dispute whether the federal standards relied upon in this case existed at the time that section 860.13 was reenacted in 1983. The federal standards referred to in the instant case are found in 14 C.F.R. § 91.17(a), which prohibit a crewmember from acting in that capacity within eight hours of consuming any alcoholic beverage or with a blood alcohol level of .04 percent or higher. In 1983, the federal regulations clearly prohibited acting as a crewmember within eight hours of consuming alcohol. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.11. However, the prohibition against acting as a crewmember with a blood alcohol level of .04 percent or higher, did not exist in 1983. Thus, for section 860.13( 2) to adopt and include the federal regulation prohibiting acting as a crew…
  7. Gluhareff v. State

    888 So. 2d 733 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times
    Appellant, a private pilot, pled guilty to operating an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 860.13, Florida Statutes (2001), expressly reserving two dispositive legal questions for review: First, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague for failure to define "under the influence," and second, whether the statute is void under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because it was preempted by federal law. We answer both questions in the negative and affirm.
  8. Fla. Stat. § 860.13.
    PAGE 1261
  9. State v. Carswell

    557 So. 2d 183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 2 times
    We first conclude that section 860.13, Florida Statutes, does not violate the single-subject rule of the Florida Constitution. This is because we find the matters in the statute are reasonably or logically connected. See Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1987); State v. Canova, 94 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957). Moreover, even if the title to section 860.13, Florida Statutes, may be defective, the statute's reenactment cures any infirmity or defect in the title. See Honchell v. State, 257 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1972); Alterman Transport Lines, Inc. v. State, 405 So.2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    UNITED STATES v. FITZGERALD,, 366 F. Supp. 3d 903 (W.D. Mich. 2017)

    . . . . § 860.13 (2010). . . .

    LATHAM, v. STATE, 185 So. 3d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . defines “[c]rime” as [a] violation of s. 316.193, s. 316.027(1), s. 327.35(1), s. 782.071(1)(b), or s. 860.13 . . .

    ABBOTT LABORATORIES, v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 15 So. 3d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

    . . . State, 943 So.2d 176, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that, because section 860.13 governing operation . . .

    CLOYD, v. STATE, 943 So. 2d 149 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

    . . . operating an aircraft while intoxicated or in a careless or reckless manner, in violation of section 860.13 . . . State, 888 So.2d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(deter-mining that section 860.13 is not preempted by federal . . . We find that section 860.13, Florida Statutes, criminalizing the operation of an aircraft while under . . . However, unlike the Parts of the Code of Federal Regulations specified above, section 860.13 does not . . . Section 860.13 was last reenacted without any amendments in 1983. . . .

    S. HUGHES, v. STATE, 943 So. 2d 176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

    . . . operating an aircraft while intoxicated or in a careless or reckless manner, in violation of section 860.13 . . . State, 888 So.2d 733 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (determining that section 860.13 is not preempted by federal . . . We find that section 860.13, Florida Statutes, criminalizing the operation of an aircraft while under . . . However, unlike the Parts of the Code of Federal Regulations specified above, section 860.13 does not . . . Section 860.13 was last reenacted without any amendments in 1983. . . .

    GLUHAREFF, v. STATE, 888 So. 2d 733 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

    . . . , pled guilty to operating an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 860.13 . . .

    HUGHES, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA,, 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2004)

    . . . . § 860.13. . Fla. . . .

    HUGHES v. THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, P. H. a, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

    . . . . §§ 316.193(l)(c) and 860.13(l)(a). Hughes and Cloyd pleaded “not guilty” to all state charges. . . . Stat. § 860.13(l)(a) provides: (1) It shall be unlawful for any person: (a) To operate an aircraft in . . . Stat. § 860.13(l)(a). . . . .

    In BAKER, v., 274 B.R. 176 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2000)

    . . . Nations Credit (revolving charge)* $ 3,474.17 Bank of America Visa* $ 3,892.11 Credit First Firestone $ 860.13 . . .

    STATE v. CARSWELL,, 557 So. 2d 183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

    . . . Robert Carswell, with operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner in violation of section 860.13 . . . The trial court dismissed the information based upon a holding that section 860.13, Florida Statutes, . . . See § 860.13(2), Fla. Stat. We conclude there is no unlawful delegation. . . . Section 860.13, Florida Statutes, however, does not violate this principle. . . . Accordingly, we rule that section 860.13, Florida Statutes, is not unconstitutional. . . .

    DELTA AIR LINES, INC. v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL,, 861 F.2d 665 (11th Cir. 1988)

    . . . . § 860.13(l)(a) Hawaii — Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 263-11 Idaho — Idaho Code § 21-112 Illinois — Ill.Ann.Stat . . .

    ARMSTRONG, v. STATE, 426 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

    . . . Section 860.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to operate . . .

    UNITED STATES H. KIRBY, X, v. JOHN A. JOHNSON SONS, 137 F. Supp. 881 (E.D. Tenn. 1954)

    . . . Miscellaneous Claim for $860.13 It appears that Ross and Johnson, in accordance with custom among contractors . . . balance, it is alleged by Ross that end of relations between Ross and Johnson left Johnson owing Ross $860.13 . . .

    RICE v. SAYERS, 98 F. Supp. 634 (D. Kan. 1951)

    . . . and personal property, all appraised as of the date of his death, in the aggregate amount of $211,-860.13 . . .

    KIMMERLE v. FARR, 189 F. 295 (6th Cir. 1911)

    . . . debited with a check of $197.34, leaving a balance to liis credit at the suspension of business of 860.13 . . .