When Disturbances on Planes Are Prohibited by Law
Often, passengers on commercial planes have disputes with crew members or attendants while waiting to take off or during the flight. While most of these disagreements are resolved uneventfully, others may escalate into conduct that is prohibited under federal law. Prosecution for a federal crime should not be taken lightly. These offenses can carry long prison terms and substantial fines. Thus, a passenger must take care to avoid crossing a line when they are arguing with an airline employee, regardless of the circumstances.
A dispute or disturbance on a plane rises to the level of a federal crime if a passenger interferes with the performance of the duties of a crew member or attendant through assault or intimidation. Attempting or conspiring to interfere with them through assault or intimidation also is prohibited under federal law. A defendant usually faces a maximum sentence of 20 years if they are convicted, but they may face a longer prison term or even life imprisonment if a dangerous weapon was involved. This does not necessarily mean a gun. A court even considered hot liquid to meet the definition of a dangerous weapon.
Special Aircraft Jurisdiction
As a threshold issue, a federal prosecutor must prove that the conduct resulting in the charges occurred within special aircraft jurisdiction. However, they do not need to show that the defendant knew that special aircraft jurisdiction applied. This jurisdiction generally covers any plane in flight that falls within one of the following categories:
- A plane in the US
- A plane operated by a US airline, or a US military plane
- A plane with a US departure or destination
- A plane that lands in the US with someone who has committed certain aviation offenses under international law still on the plane
- A private aircraft leased without a crew to anyone with a principal place of business or permanent residence in the US
A plane is considered to be in flight as soon as its doors are closed before takeoff, and it remains in flight until the first door is opened after landing.
Intimidation Interfering With Duties
To meet the intimidation standard, the conduct of the defendant must have reached a level that would have caused fear to a reasonable person in a similar situation. The intent of the defendant is not essential, nor is the question of whether the flight attendant or crew member actually feared that they would be harmed. The prosecutor does not need to prove that the defendant directly threatened a flight attendant or crew member, or that they targeted a specific individual. Moreover, physical actions are not required. Verbal statements can be enough if they are sufficiently intimidating.
The duties with which a defendant interferes often relate to passenger safety. Any conduct that prevents a crew member or attendant from carrying out their safety duties, or reduces their ability to carry out these duties, will meet this element of the crime. For example, a passenger might intimidate a flight attendant into leaving a cabin before they could make sure that all passengers had fastened their seatbelts for landing. However, a duty does not need to specifically involve aircraft safety to support a conviction.
