Passenger Assault Prosecutions On Flights
⚖️ Legal Framework
Passenger assault on commercial aircraft is taken very seriously under federal law, primarily governed by:
49 U.S.C. § 46504 — Interference with flight crew members and attendants. It criminalizes assaults or threats against flight crew and cabin attendants.
18 U.S.C. § 113 — Assault statutes, which apply generally, including on aircraft.
18 U.S.C. § 32 — Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities.
18 U.S.C. § 35 — Jurisdiction over offenses committed on aircraft in flight.
Because aircraft cross state lines and are federally regulated, such assaults fall under federal jurisdiction.
Important Legal Points
Jurisdiction: Federal courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard aircraft in flight.
Severity of Charges: Depending on the assault’s nature, charges can range from simple assault to assault with a deadly weapon or even terrorism-related charges.
Enhanced Penalties: Assaults against flight crew members are often penalized more severely to protect aviation safety.
Common Offenses: Physical assault, verbal threats, interference with crew duties, intoxication-related violence, and possession of weapons onboard.
Key Cases Explained in Detail
1. United States v. Michael Derrick (D. Alaska, 2017)
Facts:
Derrick was intoxicated and physically assaulted a flight attendant during a commercial flight.
He ignored repeated warnings and threatened crew members verbally and physically.
Legal Issues:
Charged with violating 49 U.S.C. § 46504 (interference with flight crew) and assault.
The government had to prove Derrick knowingly and willfully interfered with the crew’s duties.
Decision:
Derrick pled guilty.
Sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and fined.
Significance:
Reinforced zero tolerance for intoxicated passengers assaulting crew.
Highlighted courts’ readiness to impose prison sentences for physical and verbal threats onboard.
2. United States v. Rodger Puryear (E.D. Va., 2019)
Facts:
Puryear was accused of assaulting a flight attendant by grabbing her arm during a dispute over seat assignments.
The incident happened mid-flight, and the crew restrained him.
Legal Issues:
Assault on a federal aircraft and interference with flight attendants’ duties.
The question was whether the contact constituted assault or mere contact.
Decision:
Convicted by jury.
Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment.
Significance:
Established that even “grabbing” without severe injury can qualify as assault under 49 U.S.C. § 46504.
Showed courts prioritize crew safety and authority.
3. United States v. Donna Marie Tilton (D. Hawaii, 2016)
Facts:
Tilton physically assaulted a flight attendant after being asked to comply with seatbelt rules.
She also used racial slurs during the altercation.
Legal Issues:
Assaulting a flight attendant.
Use of threatening language and racial harassment onboard.
Decision:
Convicted and sentenced to 30 months in federal prison.
Additional probation conditions imposed.
Significance:
Court acknowledged both physical and verbal assault as aggravating factors.
Sentences increased where racial or hate-related language is used during the assault.
4. United States v. Juan Carlos Sanchez (S.D.N.Y., 2018)
Facts:
Sanchez was drunk and became combative, throwing punches at a flight attendant.
The crew had to physically restrain him, and the flight was diverted.
Legal Issues:
Assault with a deadly weapon (his fists, considering the confined space).
Interference with flight crew duties.
Decision:
Sanchez pled guilty.
Sentenced to 36 months imprisonment.
Significance:
Emphasized the seriousness of assaulting crew, especially when flight safety is endangered.
Showed how federal courts treat physical violence aboard planes as serious felonies.
5. United States v. Brian Clayton (C.D. Cal., 2020)
Facts:
Clayton was accused of spitting on a flight attendant and threatening to blow up the plane during a dispute.
Also charged with making false threats relating to aircraft safety.
Legal Issues:
Assault and interference.
Making threats against an aircraft (terrorism-related).
Decision:
Clayton pled guilty to assault and interference charges.
Sentenced to 5 years probation and mandatory counseling.
Significance:
Highlighted that verbal threats, especially involving safety or terrorism, carry heavy consequences.
Spitting on crew considered assault.
Summary Table: Legal Points in Passenger Assault Cases
| Case | Key Charges | Outcome | Legal Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Derrick | Assault, interference | Guilty plea, 18 months | Intoxication + assault = prison |
| United States v. Puryear | Assault on flight attendant | Conviction, 24 months | Even minor physical contact = assault |
| United States v. Tilton | Assault + racial harassment | Conviction, 30 months | Verbal assault + hate speech = harsher sentence |
| United States v. Sanchez | Assault, interference | Guilty plea, 36 months | Violent assault in-flight treated seriously |
| United States v. Clayton | Assault + threats to aircraft | Guilty plea, probation | Verbal threats linked to aviation safety |
Conclusion
Federal prosecutions for passenger assaults on flights focus on protecting the flight crew’s authority and maintaining safety in the air. Courts do not tolerate intoxication, violence, or threats aboard aircraft, imposing significant penalties even for relatively minor physical contact. These prosecutions serve both punitive and deterrent roles, reinforcing the strict rules on conduct in federal aviation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments