E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFederal Aviation Administration head Jerome "Randy" Babbitt was charged with driving while intoxicated. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
Updated at 2:48 p.m. ET: White House press secretary Jay Carney says President Barack Obama was informed "in the last hour" of the arrest of FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt and "reacted as you might expect."
Carney referred all questions to the FAA.
Updated at 1:53 p.m. ET: FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt has been placed on leave after he was charged with driving while intoxicated over the weekend, the agency said Monday.
FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt has been arrested in Virginia on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. NBC's Tom Costello has the details.
The Transportation Department, which oversees the FAA, said it didn't learn about the incident until Monday, two days later. Deputy Administrator Miguel Huerta will serve as acting administrator while officials consider Babbitt's "employment status," the Transportation Department said.
Original post: Randy Babbitt, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, was free on bond Monday after he was charged with driving while intoxicated over the weekend.
Police in Fairfax, Va., a suburb of Washington, said Babbitt, 65, was driving on the wrong side of the road when he was stopped at 10:30 p.m. ET Saturday. Babbitt, who was alone in the vehicle, was found to be intoxicated, police said, and was held at a detention center, where he was charged and released on a personal recognizance bond.
Police said that Babbitt wasn't involved in an accident and that he cooperated with police.
Babbitt, a pilot for Eastern Airlines for 25 years and former president of the Air Line Pilots Association, was appointed to lead the FAA in 2009.
More news and feature stories from msnbc.com:
Leave a Comment:
There clearly needs to be more severe penalties for DWI / DUI.
I disagree-- to an extent. I live in NM and our state is f*cking obsessed with DUI. I've known people to get jailed after drinking a single glass of wine with their dinner. Bottom line-- if you admit that you've had any alcohol that day, even hours earlier, you can expect a nice set of steel bracelets and a $6000 headache, loss of license, damage to your vehicle (they have unlicensed "mechanics" install breath-starters), etc. etc.
I agree that people who are actually drunk need to be punished (like the fellow in this case) but people in my state arrested for drinking a glass of wine with dinner? That's ludicrous. And then they wonder why our DUI rate is so much higher than other states-- uh, maybe it's because you've left common sense to suck dirt and you're punishing people that don't deserve such penalty.
This guy is not going to have a happy holiday.
Was this on his own time or company time?
If it was on his own time then it's his own business and no one else's.
.
Brilliant. Ever more severe penalties for DWI don't work, so you suggest we need more severe penalties for DWI. Maybe we should make any traffic offense a capital crime, with execution by the arresting officer in lieu of a trial? Think that would work?
Fairfax, VA is not the place to be DUI. Lots of police and lots of traffic. Good chance to get arrested or wreck and hurt someone. Must not have lived around here very long.
@Renee: Look at the penalties for criminal vehicular manslaughter versus straight up manslaughter.
How do the police know that only had a half glass of wine? Usually they blow a breathalyzer, and you can't fool science! Some people can't handle half a glass of wine. Solution? Don't drink the wine if you plan on driving!
Speaking as someone who lost a parent at a young age to a drunk driver, the laws are STILL not stiff enough!
ANY alcohol is TOO MUCH alcohol!!
Fred-- in my state, and I think most states, it is the discretion of the arresting officer that determines if you've had too much-- the breathalyzer cannot absolve you if they say you're intoxicated, no matter how under you blow. They'll say it was "other unknown substances" a "mental disturbance" -- anything they can get away with to say that the person was "under the influence." Case in point, a gal here blew .04 and was still arrested, her car was impounded and she got to pay all court costs associated with proving that she was not intoxicated. I never did find out how the judge ruled in the case, but it was in the news at the time.
Ruken: I used to work for Motorola on the two way radio side. On multiple occassions, when presenting an expensive solution to the sheriff himself along with a room full of deputies, the sheriff would say to everyone questioning the cost, "to go out and write more tickets for a few months" and that would pay for it. No joke, and multiple counties I heard this. Sorry but your idea doens't work any better than the current one.
In my state, .04 is impaired. In addition, if you fail the sobriety tests (walking a straight line, touching the tip of your nose with a finger), you are also at risk. Simple solution, DON'T DRINK before you drive. It's NOT hard!
And in truth, if you're driving after drinking, you get what you deserve (and very well may do to others things they do NOT deserve).
Ha, maybe all our Congressional representatives should get a breath test BEFORE they vote on legislation since we don't know what they were doing behind those "behind closed doors" during those "Grand deals". Maybe they weren't just eating $ 16 donuts. [sarcasm]
And yet Germany, who does not have these sorts of draconian DUI laws, has fewer DUIs per capita (both arrests and accidents) than the US. The answer is NOT greater punishment-- that much should be obvious.
As an aside, does anyone else find it ironic and (frankly) humiliating that "The Land of the Free" has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world? Go figure...
Wakehead said: 'Fairfax, VA is not the place to be DUI. Lots of police and lots of traffic. Good chance to get arrested or wreck and hurt someone. Must not have lived around here very long.'
And he is right. We lived there for 16 years and found the police were very much on top of things, polite and professional, and always ready to respond. Thus the crime rate was low and there were relatively few accidents. Therefore, Fairfax City was a great place to live....... except for the traffic, which got worse by the day. We retired and reluctantly moved away.
teenagers are more dangerous then someone who had a couple drinks then drove. yet we let them drive but if you have one to many to drink and drive everyone on this strand wants you to loose everything over it. Pretty dumb given the overwhelming majority of people have been over the limit driving at some point in their life.
bet nothing happens to him, but a slap on the hand.
Obvious only if you choose to take a quick and shallow view of the situation. Don't forget Germany also allows drinking at a FAR younger age than America does. More time to understand how incapacitating alcohol is for drivers.
How draconian is it to allow a drunk driver to WALK after killing someone? That's not draconian to anyone but the poor schmuck who got hit by someone who has NO business being on the road.
No wonder controllers are asleep - so's the boss.
We don't need more/tougher laws for DWI. All the stats show that the number of traffic related accidents due to alcohol have dropped SIGNIFICANTLY in the last 30 years. And as this article proves...people will CONTINUE to drink and drive despite the laws.
To think that some states, (CA for one) are trying to drop the BAL down to 0.4% is crazy. Don't penalize me b/c of some idiot who didn't exercise some self control. I like a glass of wine at dinner and can drive fine afterwards.
I'm much more concerned about the 16 year old tailgating me or the person on their cell phone.
How about those of us who have lost two friends to texters and a third had an amputation at the hip - courtesy of a texter? Those laws are nearly non-existent. And there are studies that indicate cell phone users are 6 times more likely to be involved in an accident than a drunk. And they suggested that texters were even more likely but didn't have the empirical data.
You should NEVER take a field sobriety test - even if you have never even sniffed a beer bottle cap. The field sobriety test has nothing to do with the implied consent laws and you will NOT lose your license for simply refusing to perform the test. If you do the test, it is only more evidence against you that can be used in court. But they cannot use the refusal against you in court.
I agree, texting and using a HANDHELD phone while driving should be illegal also (and teh verdict is still out on hands-free devices). Society is changing, as it does, we will introduce new ways for people to be flagrant idiots, and play with the lives of their fellow humans.
It took a while for people to even recognize DWI was dangerous (25,000 lives per year kind of dangerous! SO sorry you can't have a glass of wine and drive home, POOR POOPSIE! Take a cab!)
NOT true in Virginia. If you refuse a breathalyzer or to participate in the tests, you are looking at an automatic suspension of your license.
Fred, Field sobriety tests ARE NOT required by law and refusal WILL NOT result in a loss of license. Chemical sobriety test are a different matter. Yes, refusal to take a breath test or a urine test can be used as presumption of guilt and you can lose your license. But that's not what the original poster was talking about. The original poster mentioned field sobriety test and in that matter that poster was correct.
Now let's place OBAMA on leave!
"You're Fired!"
.....here is a bottle of Johnny Walker as your severance........ (kidding)
Samuel Adams on a road trip - "Always a good decision".
Maybe he can get some tips from Drew Double Drunk Driving Lewis, another transportation expert.
What is wrong with our country, these "high-ranking" individuals, and the DWI/DUI laws? They're all messed up! Evidently our laws aren't strict enough to deter people from drinking and driving. Something more has to be done. It's unfortunate that it takes a person to be killed by a drunk driver before anything will be done.
As for this FAA Administrator, he should be let go from his position. He's not setting a very good example for anyone, especially his employees.
Alcoholism is a disability, and as such they may not be able to fire him.
Fine him, put him in treatment, then assess his job.
As punishment he should be grounded on the tarmac imo.
Calling alcholism a disability is a crutch. It is a wilfull act. Cancer, renal failure,etc. are examples of disabilities.
FAA DWI? OMG LOL!
Government job opening, contact FAA for details.
We'll have another big goverment job opening scheduled for January 2012. Applicants are already being interviewed.
Oh Great! The guy that is supposed to be smart enough to be in charge of 100's of thousands of flights a day over this country ...
... isn't even smart enough to be in charge of himself!
(oh ... get your facts straight there 'tomorrow' it was Bobbitt (bob: as in to cut something short) ... not Babbitt ...DUH)
tomorrowsnews: How much have you had to drink? Perhaps the incident you are trying to recall is when Lorena Bobbitt, that's with an "o" not an "a", severely damaged her husband John's penis, in 1993.
ROFLMAO!
... and who the heck is "Joan"???
The only 'Joan' I know of that is famous got beheaded ... not the other way around!
(dang! this is killing me! :-)= .... )
He will learn DWI is a pain. No one is above getting a DWI you can have one drink think your fine and get a dwi. The percentage of people in the US with a DWI is very very high. This guy was drinking and driving but he was not on the job so it has nothing to do with the FAA. Having harder penalties will not have any positive impact on the DWI rate it will only mean more people unable to get a job and more people being a product of the system. The real problem is an overall lack of mass transportation. There is a direct relationship between access to mass transit and DWI rates per-captia. (This data is agressivly protected from public view) Treating the symptom instead of the problem will continue to have adverse effects. DWI's are a huge money making business and MADD is right in the middle of it.
????
OKAY.
(don't apply for his job ... PLEASE!)
johngis, Great response! Your comment is the most lucid and informed response I have read so far in the comments about this article. The immediate repercussions of a DUI (embarrassment, fines, loss of driving privileges, etc.) are fair; however, you are spot on regarding the difficulty for someone seeking employment after a DUI. This can primarily be attributed to employee background investigations and our country's acceptance of "zero-tolerance" for mistakes. Additionally, you're right; DUIs ARE a huge money maker for local/state governments and anyone that fails to realize this should do a little more research on how law enforcement agencies justify their budgets.
@johngis. Agreed. You hit some great points and I was curious if anyone would bring MADD into this discussion. Few people give any thought to MADD and the huge payroll they carry. Or the dollars they spend lobbying in DC. They are behind this nonsense of bringing the BAL's down to 0.4%. A move which would ruin the restaurant industry.
To me DWI's are all about the details. Getting nabbed at some neighborhood sobriety check at Xmas time isn't the same as the guy driving the wrong way on the highway. Yet they are likely to face the same punishment.
It may be time to resign.
What a total dirt bag. It couldn't have happened to a better guy. As a former Eastern Pilot that watched Babbitt and ALPA destroy thousands of careers, seeing him promoted to FAA chief was enough to make me vomit. It makes you question the entire concept of karma. I hope I live long enough to piss on his grave.
that photo is not one of a healthy man. I suspect this is finally the time he got caught.
Exactly on your thought of the time he finally got caught. That is all DUI/DWI is about...when you get caught. How many of you have made the decision to drive home just 1 time with a .08 level. More than 3 out of 4 I'll bet. We have almost all done it, which includes politicians and anyone else. The difference are those that do it more have more a chance of getting caught. I find it very hard to believe that if we go back to being 16 yrs old, you can honestly say you've never done it. Not to say this isn't a big deal, because it is, but it's a reality that most of us have done it.
You're supposed to be setting good moral standards when in positions of public trust......or it used to be years ago. We, as a society, are so apathetic that society permits just about anything without consequence. He should be fired from his job, but you know he'll have his had slapped and released....why???? because he didn't kill anyone and probably promised NEVER to do that again.
Obama, grow a pair and fire this hypocrite!! Paid leave is no punishment.
he aint got a pair he has friends in high places he doesn't need guts or balls. He is effectively ineffective.
GOOD GRIEF! If anybody know not to drink and drive, it should be this guy. He used to be a pilot!
As for being sympathetic for someone "having one drink" and getting cited for DUI, that's not happening for me. Why would you be stopped for it unless you do something wrong, such as weaving while driving? You'd need to fail Field Sobriety Tests. Perhaps you were dumb enough to have an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. Perhaps you smelled like a brewery. If they want to conduct a Breathalyzer test and you refuse, at least here in WA state, you get a nice, safe, warm trip to jail for a 24 hour stay. Perhaps you had not imbibed any alcohol, but thought you were safe by taking drugs instead. They will request blood and urine tests when you get there, and if you're insecure enough to refuse those, well enough said.
You'd never complain about any DUI if, like me, you've lost loved ones to the arrogant, stupid and selfish person who drove under the influence.
Here's a story of a senior ATF agent with a .222 blood alcohol content who was operating a taxpayer owned vehicle and terrorizing citizens at gunpoint. He was allowed to continue carrying firearms and driving. In the tradition of juries always giving cops the benefit of the doubt, he was acquitted in spite of incontrovertible evidence. Then to add insult to injury, the president of the local cop union issued a public statement that Peterson should not have been arrested or prosecuted.
http://www.kcci.com/news/1672397/detail.html
What the guy didn't make enuff to hire a driver or pay for taxi?
This guy has a few too many drinks and is arrested,put on cuffs and then jail and will probably be fired.Another friend of President Obama,albeit far far wealthier, Jon Corzine 'allegedly' caused 1.2 Billion dollars of MF Global customer funds to go missing and he's out and about having a merry time. No perp walk,no cuffs,no jail-at least not yet .Where's the justice?
Jon Corzine wasn't risking immendent death with a 3000 pound weopon.
"Placed on leave." Govenment speak for a paid vacation.
ZERO TOLERANCE that is what they serve up for their other staff so it should be the same for this scum bag.
OBAMA FIRE HIM!!! And OBAMA one more thing!
Jon Corzine 'allegedly' caused 1.2 Billion dollars of MF Global customer funds to go missing and he's out and about having a merry time
Just call a cab if you're drunk and can't drive it's cheaper than getting caught DUI. Bad for your record and pocket book. Use your head morons...
If this story is reported by the Corporate Media than you know they're corrupt because they didn't report on:
Wall Street Walmart heiress DUIs in Texas, the Sheriff tries to cover it up. 1998, in drunken binge she murders a mother of two children. Not one word ever reported by the Wall Street Corporate Media. The 99% have had enough!
www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/14/walmart-heiress-spends-birthday-in-jail-for-dwi/
www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20120165-504083.html?tag=mncol;lst;2
Why? He wasn't flying a plane, was he?
DUI has become the crime of the century!
DUI is bad enough. The punshment can be a lot worse when your arrest hits the news... then your career is essentially over or at best... altered for life. Especially when you hold a high profile position. I suspect that he knew the risks and it probably wasn't the first time.
We all make dumb mistakes. I venture a guess that this guy will lose his position. It will cost him more than $6000... in fines, etc.
What a douche bag.. FAA for ya...This was not reported but faux news so it must be true.