18 U.S.C. § 342
Operation of a common carrier under the influence of alcohol or drugs
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1991–2018 · leading case: United States v. Sean Fitzgerald, 906 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Sean Fitzgerald, 906 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2018). “Fitzgerald was arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 342 , which makes it a crime to operate a common carrier while intoxicated.”
United States v. Cope, 676 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2012). “Aaron Jason Cope was convicted of one count of operating a common carrier—a commercial airplane—under the influence of alcohol in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 342 . On appeal, Mr. Cope challenges his conviction based on improper venue, insufficiency of the evidence, and improper…”
United States v. Norman Lyle Prouse, United States of Am. v. Robert John Kirchner, United States of Am. v. Joseph Wesley Balzer, 945 F.2d 1017 (8th Cir. 1991). “Norman Lyle Prouse, Robert John Kirchner, and John Wesley Balzer appeal their conviction upon a jury verdict and sentence for operating a commercial passenger airplane while under the influence of alcohol in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 342 (1988). Appellants raise numerous claims.”
United States v. Sauls, 981 F. Supp. 909 (D. Maryland 1997). “In addition, under the commerce clause, Congress has the power to enact a national law prohibiting driving while intoxicated and related offenses for the entire county which could also include the appropriate presumptions and/or inferences to be applied See, 18 U.S.C. §§ 342 ,…”
Hughes v. Eleventh Jud. Circuit of Florida, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2003). “Additionally, Ward , which is the most factually similar case, in that it involves the piloting of an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol, was decided prior to Congress' enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 342 in 1986, and the FAA’s promulgation of 14 C.”
United States v. Fitzgerald, 366 F. Supp. 3d 903 (W.D. Mich. 2017). “ROBERT HOLMES BELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On September 20, 2016, a grand jury charged Defendant Fitzgerald with operation of an air common carrier while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 342 . (ECF No. 3.) On December 2, 2016, Defendant filed a…”
United States v. Fitzgerald, 366 F. Supp. 3d 936 (W.D. Mich. 2017). “343 percent. The parties agree that the aircraft engines were not running and that no passengers had boarded, but the government says that Defendant was still operating the aircraft because he was performing mandatory pre-flight checks of the equipment and otherwise taking…”
United States v. Vega Cosme, 1 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.P.R. 1998). “sets forth at 18 U.S.C. § 342 (F)(1)(c), a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assui’e the appearance of the accused as required and the safety of the community if there is probable cause to believe that the person committed an…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.