Arrest - The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo, PLLC

Criminal laws pertaining to unruly airplane passengers

The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo, PLLC Team — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 14:31:00 GMT

Between 2007 and 2016, over 58,000 unruly passenger incidents were reported on International aircraft in-flight by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). In 2016, the rate was one incident for every 1.424 flights. The majority of reports were Level 1 incidents which are verbal in nature and can usually be dealt with to a successful conclusion by crew using de-escalation training. 12% of reports relate to Level 2 incidents which involve physical aggression to others or damage to the aircraft. Intoxication from alcohol or drugs was identified as a factor in 33% of reported cases. Unruly passenger incidents include violence against crew and other passengers, harassment, verbal abuse, smoking, failure to follow safety instructions and other forms of riotous behavior. Recently, a woman was removed from a Frontier Airlines flight when she attempted to fly with her “emotional support” squirrel and then refused to get off the plane when she was told rodents, including squirrels, are not allowed on Frontier flights. Frontier, like many airlines, has a policy on emotional support and trained service animals allowing cats, dogs and miniature horses. Federal regulations do permit them on airplanes but give the airlines permission to turn away unusual animals, like squirrels. The passenger was advised of the policy and asked to deplane, but when she declined, other passengers were forced to deplane so that authorities could remove the woman from the aircraft.Although such acts are committed by a tiny minority of passengers, they have a disproportionate impact, create inconvenience, threaten the safety and security of other passengers and crew, and lead to significant operational disruption and costs for airlines. The aircraft cabin is a unique space and it is necessary to recognize the limitations that exist when you are flying in the air in a metal tub. As a result, these sorts of in-flight disturbances frequently result in law enforcement officers becoming involved.One of the likely reasons for the increasing reports of disruptive passengers is the existence of a gap in international law and the fact that many countries don’t apply their laws to foreign aircraft arriving on their soil. Passenger behavior is subject to the law of the country the plane is registered in. The passengers responsible often walk away and victims of violence can’t always take practical legal actions. Yet, American Federal law bans passengers from interfering with flight crew. Also, certain acts which would be punishable if they occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7, are made criminal under 49 U.S.C. § 46506(1) (formerly 49 U.S.C. App. § 1472(k)(1)) if they occur within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.The proscribed acts are assault (18 U.S.C. § 113), maiming (18 U.S.C. § 114), embezzlement and theft (18 U.S.C. § 661), receiving stolen property (18 U.S.C. § 662), murder (18 U.S.C. § 1111), manslaughter (18 U.S.C. § 1112), attempted murder or manslaughter (18 U.S.C. § 1113), sexual abuse offenses (18 U.S.C. §§ 2241 to 2244), and robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2111).The most common unruly incidents are assault on flight attendants and sexual assault on other passengers, which can be prosecuted with federal criminal charges such as:

18 U.S. C. § 2241 – aggravated sexual abuse18 U.S. C. § 2244 – abusive sexual contact

But also with specific charges:

49 U.S. C. § 46504 – Interference with flight crew members and attendants: “An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”49 U.S. C. § 46507 – False information and threats: “An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, if the individual—

(1) knowing the information to be false, willfully and maliciously or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, gives, or causes to be given, under circumstances in which the information reasonably may be believed, false information about an alleged attempt being made or to be made to do an act that would violate section 46502(a), 46504, 46505, or 46506 of this title; or(2)(A) threatens to violate section 46502(a), 46504, 46505, or 46506 of this title, or causes a threat to violate any of those sections to be made; and(B) has the apparent determination and will to carry out the threat.”

18 U.S. C. § 32 – Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

However, Department of Justice figures show that just 11% of cases brought to the Federal Aviation Administration between 2001 and 2014 rose to the level of federal criminal prosecution. Moreover, even when there is a criminal prosecution, a plea agreement is often approved for the reduced misdemeanor charge of simple assault (18 U.S.C § 113). The airlines are sometimes reluctant to press criminal charges against the traveler because of fears that bad press could hurt the airline’s image, which can be surprising considering that many disruptive passengers can cost airlines big money, because it can cost between $10.000 and $200.000 to perform an unscheduled landing divert a flight or disembark an unruly passenger.[If you or a loved one is involved in an unruly passenger case, do not hesitate to reach out to The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo; our team of former prosecutors and experienced criminal defense attorneys can help you with your case.]

Just Don’t Do It: The recent federal prosecution for fake Nikes

The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo, PLLC Team — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 17:45:00 GMT

From at least in or about January 2016, up to and including July 2018, in New York and New Jersey, Mikuki Suen, 43, Jian Min Huang, 42, Songhua Qu, 54, Kin Lui Chen, 53, and Fangrang Qu, 31 and others known and unknown allegedly smuggled hundreds of thousands of pairs of fake Nike Air Jordan sneakers. The five accused fake-shoes traffickers were arrested for having counterfeited over $70 million in Fake Nike shoes and sold them to buyers on the U.S. market. The NYPD and the Department of Homeland Security received the help of a confidential source who helped make numerous purchases during the investigation. This confidential source has been a law enforcement source for approximately two years.

Nike’s Air Jordan line of sneakers are some of the most popular and expensive athletic shoes in circulation. Nike has released a different Air Jordan model almost every year since the shoe line was first introduced in 1984. Many of these models are known by their model number, like the Air Jordan XIII, the 13^th model, and some models are known by the year of introduction, like the Air Jordan 2009. Air Jordan sneakers can cost from approximately 100$ to the thousands of dollars, depending on color and design.

More than 42 containers carrying nearly 400 000 pairs of the trendy fake sneakers traveled from factories in China to Port Newark. These sneakers were produced to resemble Air Jordan sneakers in design and color but are “generic” (the “Generic Air Jordan”). They were imported into the U.S. without the inclusion of logos that are trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Once the Generic Air Jordan arrived in the U.S., they were altered within the New York area to add trademarked logos to the shoes in warehouses in Queens and Brooklyn. Once this alteration took place, the shoes were considered “counterfeit”. Finally, the Counterfeit Sneaker Ring processed with the distribution of the fake shoes within the U.S. at a significant profit.

The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, Geoffrey Berman, because many of the shoes were shipped in and out of that jurisdiction. The U.S Attorney said in a statement that he commends “our law enforcement partners for helping to bring today’s charges, which send a clear message to would-be counterfeiters: ‘Just don’t do it’ ”.

Indeed, the 5 defendants face two charges according to the complaint:

Counterfeit trafficking conspiracy (Title 18 United States Code Section 2320(a) (1))
Trafficking in counterfeit goods (Title 18 United States Code Section 2320 and 2.)

Under Title 18 United States Code section 2320, it is unlawful to willfully and knowingly perform, attempt, or conspire to perform any of the following acts:

traffic in goods or services and knowingly use a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services;
traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive;
traffic in goods or services knowing that such good or service is a counterfeit military good or service the use, malfunction, or failure of which is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, the disclosure of classified information, impairment of combat operations, or other significant harm to a combat operation, a member of the Armed Forces, or to national security; or
traffic in a counterfeit drug.

In order for the five defendants to be found guilty of federal counterfeiting, the U.S. Attorney will have to prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

They trafficked, attempted to traffic, or conspired to traffic in goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs;
The goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs were counterfeit or unoriginal from those created by the trademark owner of these goods, services, or drugs;
They knew the goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs were unoriginal or counterfeit in nature;
And they intended for the goods, services, or pharmaceutical drugs to be fraudulently passed as original, and for them to be distributed as such.

The term “counterfeit mark” means a spurious mark:

that is used in connection with trafficking in any goods, services, labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature;
that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal register in the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office and in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so registered;
that is applied to or used in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered with the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office, or is applied to or consists of a label, patch, sticker, wrapper, badge, emblem, medallion, charm, box, container, can, case, hangtag, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature that is designed, marketed, or otherwise intended to be used on or in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and
the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.

Under 18 USC 2320, counterfeiting is a federal offense. These defendants face a sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison and fines of up to $2 million if they are convicted of this crime. If it is their second or subsequent offense for federal counterfeiting, they face a fine of up $5 million and up to 20 years in prison.

The author of this article is a federal criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. If you or a loved one have been arrested for a federal offense, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss your case and his possible representation.