Sam's is your source for Hatteras and Cabo Yacht parts.

Enter a part description OR part number to search the Hatteras/Cabo parts catalog:

Email Sam's or call 1-800-678-9230 to order parts.

Be prepared to pay if you make FALSE distress calls !!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaxfishgyd
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 21
  • Views Views 7,348

Jaxfishgyd

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
2,442
Hatteras Model
43' DOUBLE CABIN (1970 - 1984)
Danik Kumar Must Pay $489,000 For False Distress Call



AP | by AMANDA LEE MYERS


Posted: 04/23/2014 5:01 pm EDT Updated: 04/23/2014 5:59 pm EDT

CINCINNATI (AP) — An Ohio man who was 19 when he made a false distress call that triggered a massive, 21-hour search on Lake Erie must pay $489,000 in restitution to the U.S. and Canadian agencies involved in the needless rescue effort, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found that a lower court properly ordered 21-year-old Danik Kumar of Sandusky to pay for all costs associated with the March 2012 search, launched after he reported seeing a fishing boat with four people on board sending up flares on Lake Erie as he was flying a small plane overhead.

About 70 personnel from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard used three boats, a helicopter and a small plane before calling off the search.

A month later, Kumar told investigators that though he originally thought he saw a single flare go up, he never saw a boat, according to court records.

Kumar told investigators that he continued reporting a boat in distress for fear of sounding stupid and ruining his chances of becoming a Coast Guard aviator, court records say.

After Kumar pleaded guilty to making a false distress call, federal Judge Sara Lioi sentenced him to three months in jail, and ordered him to pay $277,000 to the U.S. Coast Guard and $212,000 to the Canadian Coast Guard.

In upholding Lioi's order, the 6th Circuit majority said that although the ruling is "an onerous burden on the shoulders of a young man," U.S. law was intended to deal harshly with hoaxes to help deter future ones.




In a dissenting opinion, Judge Helene White wrote that the government's estimated cost of the search was too high and shouldn't have included indirect costs, such as payroll processing and building maintenance.

Kumar's Cleveland attorney, Edmund Searby, said he's considering his appeal options.

"It's just a sad story," he said. "I'm not defending what he did, but it's an awful large penalty to pay. ... He's never going to recover — on some level — from this."

The government's prosecutor, Michelle Baeppler, argued that Kumar needed to be held responsible for every cost associated with the search, from the gas used in the boats and aircraft to maintenance and depreciation costs incurred from their use.

"His claim that he should only have to pay for a few items ... is truly a simplistic and naive notion of the cost involved in conducting a search and rescue operation," Baeppler wrote.

Searby never disputed that Kumar should pay restitution, but argued it shouldn't be any higher than $118,000.

Searby said Kumar had to drop out of Bowling Green State University's aviation program and is figuring out what to do next.

"Danik's dream has long been to be a pilot, but it's unclear now whether that dream can be realized," Searby said. "I'd hate for it to end like this."
 
So one has to pay fixed costs, overhead, salaries, and depreciation.....even though these costs would be identical if the equipment sat idle on the ground? That's a pretty bad precedent to set.
 
In other news, illegal aliens run up bills, in the millions, for housing, health care, education, food stamps and others. And the attorney general does nothing. Who is paying the bill for the "false distress"?

That is what it is, if an illegal alien came with nothing and we give him somthing to add to nothing he started with we are responding to a false distress.

Just because someone doesnt have something doesn't mean they should have it.

I think paying for the false report is fair, you need to pay your way.

JM
 
Gentlemen and ladies, please keep your posts on this thread on topic. Thanks.
 
While the cost may be padded, I fully support someone being charged and find for false distress calls providing there is strong evidence the report was false. This is a tricky situation as you want to deter tale reports but you don't want to create any reluctance to report what someone thinks is a real emergency.
 
It is a difficult situation to properly assess…

Initially he apparently believed he was calling in a real distress call - seeing a red flare. If I fired a red flare, I would really like for someone to report it.

BUT, then he (apparently) continued to make calls that he observed a boat in distress which was not the case; now THAT was really stupid and he deserves to be responsible for the cost of the rescue mission.

OTOH, as noted, if any of the people involved were being paid for being at work that day anyway, I don't understand how he can be responsible for anything related to that. The cost of fuel, overtime, whatever, yes and a fine for a false distress call itself. But salaries and costs for people who would have received that anyway makes no sense to me.

I ASSUME that had he called in shortly afterward to say that he saw nothing else but the single red flare or had said nothing at all beyond reporting the flare, he would not be guilty of anything other than doing what he should have done. Right? (I hope)

Of course, who knows if the posted story is at all accurate anyway. ;)
 
I don't have a problem with a hoax caller being charged some fixed cost like saleries. The salaried personnel could have been doing other work so yes he should be charged for the waste. Hard to defend a hoax but if he did think he saw something initially, that does change things. If he embellished afterwards that should be a chargeable offense but certainly different from a purely false report. This is where things get a bit grey. There are plenty of 911 calls made that turn out to be nothing but the caller thought there may have been an emergency. Minimizing false alarms and hoax calls is essential but it can't be at the expense of real emergencies being reported.
 
IF he did it on PURPOSE to just call trouble, HANG HIM... IF he did it and 'thought' he was justified.... Oops....
 
What about the risk to the searchers. Every year some moron tree hugger falls down hiking climbing or mountaineering and our brave rescue workers are put at risk and some lost because of their putting themselves in harms way.
 
$489K from a 21 year old? This brings to mind the old "can't squeeze blood from a turnip" bit. Talk about having no incentive to pursue anything in life other than to sign up for welf... Oops! :)

Seriously. does anybody know if there is a statute of limitations on such a judgment? I personally think it's a tad absurd, especially with him being 19 years old at the time of this incident.
 
$489K from a 21 year old? This brings to mind the old "can't squeeze blood from a turnip" bit. Talk about having no incentive to pursue anything in life other than to sign up for welf... Oops! :)

Seriously. does anybody know if there is a statute of limitations on such a judgment? I personally think it's a tad absurd, especially with him being 19 years old at the time of this incident.

So if he has the money its an ok fine but if he doesn't its too much? Punishment is supposed to hit hard and deep. Let him pay it off over time. He was flying around in a plane so he must have resources.
 
Well, in re-reading the article, the guy pleaded guilty to sending a false distress call so therefore it WAS a false distress call as far as the law is concerned. SO he deserves what he gets…assuming anybody else get's an equal penalty for the same thing. The issue for the fine becomes how long the search went on. If it had been discovered to be a hoax in, say 10 minutes, the cost would have been minimal and except for the punishment for the false call itself, there would probably have been little or no additional monetary penalties.

I ASSUME that the same thing would apply to any sending a false distress call - punishment for the call plus whatever costs were incurred by searchers.

He did spend time in jail, if I understand correctly, for the false call. So he was punished for the crime itself. I still have some issue with the fine including wages for people who may have been sitting around drinking coffee while on call and getting paid anyway. But as mentioned earlier, if they had been doing other work and were "diverted," or folks were called in to work, that's a different thing.
 
I hate to say this...sometimes I feel I can trust criminals more than I can trust prosecutors.
 
It's about time some teeth have been put in the law. Although the fine does seem pretty stiff, the word is out don't do it. Anyone having been fined by the Coast Gaurd knows their fines are quite stiff.

It's too bad they don't do the same for the druggies.
 
While tracking down a false distress, someone in a real distress might have to share resorces with the false distress, that could kill someone.

If the purpose is to set a the stage for the next person that causes a false distress, its a likely a good start. The hoaxer was some kind of a pilot and had to understand what he did was dangerous to people in distress.

When I am at sea and hear a distress call I check to see if it is near by, maybe I can help (again), he did the oppisite.

In life we should be part of solution, he was the problem.

JM
 
Well, in re-reading the article, the guy pleaded guilty to sending a false distress call so therefore it WAS a false distress call as far as the law is concerned. SO he deserves what he gets…assuming anybody else get's an equal penalty for the same thing. The issue for the fine becomes how long the search went on. If it had been discovered to be a hoax in, say 10 minutes, the cost would have been minimal and except for the punishment for the false call itself, there would probably have been little or no additional monetary penalties.

I ASSUME that the same thing would apply to any sending a false distress call - punishment for the call plus whatever costs were incurred by searchers.

He did spend time in jail, if I understand correctly, for the false call. So he was punished for the crime itself. I still have some issue with the fine including wages for people who may have been sitting around drinking coffee while on call and getting paid anyway. But as mentioned earlier, if they had been doing other work and were "diverted," or folks were called in to work, that's a different thing.

Like any of us who spend or has spent time offshore, I am with all that say the act of making a false call needs to be dealt with severely, but I think this post has sit exactly right.

Lady Justice has a blindfold so that everyone gets dealt the same hand, without prejudice. This link takes you too a USCG press release about a former coast guardsman who did the same thing.... or perhaps worse because of the apparent belief at least that the other guy thought he saw a flare.

http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/4007...orney-s-Office-prosecute-fake-distress-caller

So the prosecution of this kid appears to be more extensive than the prosecution of a former coastie... which to me sounds back assward.

What scares me is the precedent of a prosecutor on a holy mission... So the next time I get a speeding ticket and the cop or prosecutor doesn't like the cut of my jib... could this logic be extended and to hold that I should be responsible for the depreciation of the Crown Vic that pulled me over or paying for the donuts at the trooper precinct that day? I sure hope not and I sure hope that if this all is true, the prosecutor gets some form of review/sanction for overreaching.

Idle hopes I am sure.
 
I think judges are bound by statutes to some extent, so that when you are pulled over for speeding they cannot impose more than the maximum fine allowed by law. I suspect, though, that in this case the statutes that govern the judge's ability to impose sentence permit fines and prison terms that are quite harsh indeed. The sky is pretty much the limit.

Since (if I am not mistaken) debts to the Federal government are seldom dischargeable in bankruptcy, this man's life is essentially ruined. To be sure, it is by his own selfish and immature act, but they have sentenced him to a life of penury. It is unlikely, with this act and conviction on his record, that he will ever have the capacity to pay off his fine and turn his life around. If the purpose of imprisonment and fining anyone is to punish, that has been achieved in spades. If the purpose is to rehabilitate, the justice system has failed.

In this case, I think it was appropriate for him to be punished. But a sentence which amounts to poverty and perhaps unemployability for life- essentially making his life worthless in a real sense- seems unworthy, to me, of a justice system that seeks to be regarded as fair.

Even billionaires are no match for the Federal justice system. The idea that one nineteen year old person of admitted immaturity could defend himself is not believable from the start. And, from what they relate of the case, he did not have much defense to offer from the start as well.
 
Last edited:
Local news had a piece on this guy. News reported that the hoaxer was flying a small plane, said he saw a flare and reported the distress. Then the report goes on... He then realized it was not a flare, but since he wanted to be a pilot for one of the armed services (either Coasties or Navy I think) he was afraid to cancel the distress call for fear of not being accepted into the service he wanted. He then totally screwed up and continued to report the distress.... Not good either way. The kid has since dropped out of college and is assessing next career steps. I'd wager that his future flying career is over, unless it's flying small passenger planes for the local outfit.
 
So if he has the money its an ok fine but if he doesn't its too much? Punishment is supposed to hit hard and deep. Let him pay it off over time. He was flying around in a plane so he must have resources.
The fine is absurd, period. You want to talk about wasting taxpayer money? How much did it cost the taxpayers to prosecute this guy and secure a judgment that has no chance in hell of ever being repaid? Why not charge the guy for the expenses involved in taking this to trial? Where does it end?

As for having resources to fly around in a plane, that is hardly an indication of wealth. Then again, maybe he should deduct from his fine the amount he paid to be flying around in that plane thinking he was doing something useful when he saw that flare. Heck, the emotional distress brought on by his prosecution has probably left him permanently scarred which will probably qualify him for disability.

Should the guy be punished?... of course, but this was overkill in the extreme.
 
Bird, I am in serious danger of agreeing with you. We've got to do something about this. One of us has to take a less reasonable point of view.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
38,154
Messages
448,708
Members
12,482
Latest member
UnaVida

Latest Posts

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom