The one thing that keeps coming to my mind is that here in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty. Or at least thats how its supposed to work.

Also in regards to refusal, the person trying to administer the test must have appropriate authority to do so. Just because you pee in a cup for me doesnt constitute a refusal, after all im just some perv on a a forum. So whomever asked must have appropriate creds. Maybe, maybe not.

I tend to think that if his blood test comes back lower than .04, than career wise he is in a salvageable situation. It is my understanding that a blood test is controlling.

Then there is of course evidence issues. If proof can arise that either the breath was not aquired legally or correctly, than a DA would likely toss it out.

Lastly info from some broke local news may have inaccuracies, so collectivly it might be unfair to crucify the guy before all the real facts come out. More than anything it should be a reminder to be safe and responsible while at work or home.

True for criminal law.

Not true for admin law, which is how most FAR's are enforced by the FAA. Flying is a privilege, they can take certificate action and fine you with minimal due process (somewhat improved by pilot bill of rights).

Same way states can suspend you DL after a DUI stop, even before the trail.

I'm sure they had the creds. The problem for LE is that the refusal must be related to enforcement of state/local laws similar to the FARs in question. Maybe the state has laws that meet that test, maybe they don't.


Not if it's three hours later, they can extrapolate back, especially since they have the breath test and will probably find out when, where, and how much he drank.

Of course, but the FAA may not care and the company certainly won't.

Charges were dropped.. but I assume that doesn't mean he's out of the woods as far as his employmen goes.

Intoxication charge against pilot dismissed | Local | rapidcityjournal.com

That's what you would expect. With the blood being less than LOQ, limit of quantitation, which is extremely low depending on the testing performed, probably with gas chromatography and mass spec detection. This testing is capable of detection below microgram per deciliter of blood. To put that in perspective, it is common to detect cocaine on dollar bills in the parts per trillion amount, literally picograms.


Any decent employment lawyer would be able to keep the persons job with a blood test below LOQ. The handheld breath test given at the time is useless and a reading of 0.046 is well proven to be inaccurate from these devices. The BAC could have been 0.000 or 0.080 and the machine spits out that number. Further the donor may be diabetic, which often causes people to produce ketones that are expelled from the mouth, and has a very sweet smell much like alcohol. Further ketones will cause a breathalyzer to quantitate a number, as the machine is non specifics and detects all aldehydes, ketones and alcohol groups.

As far as denying to give blood, never ever give blood without a search warrant. Never ever.. Never ever give blood until you have consulted with a lawyer. Never ever give blood unless a second sample is taken at the same time that can be examined at a laboratory of your choice. I would not trust my future life to some laboraties as many of them are incompetent.

Great info, thanks.

Waiting to see what Cajun11 has to say now?

However--this does NOT trump your right to due process, or your right against self incrimination.

ALWAYS----NEVER SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE, OR DO ANYTHING WITHOUT A LAWYER ON YOUR SIDE FIRST---EVER!

Unless you are a pilot and asked to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in accordance with §91.17(c)

Then do that, otherwise you can kiss your certs goodbye.

I agree, but wait till a lawyer advises and a court order is issued specific to law enforcement officer in accordance with and specific to the CFR and our local statutes.

Breath is always required since you are freely breathing and most states have established breath testing as non invasive evidence collection. At least where I am a blood test must be court ordered. A blood test can be denied based on religious or medical reasons and it does not result in a refusal and therefore a judge must order the collection of evidence. Unless of course you submit the sample freely. Every state is different and therefore you have the right to consult a lawyer when you are under arrest as provided by the supreme court miranda ruling.

Ofcourse there are your companies drug and alcohol testing policy, but consult with your union contact prior. There is nothing wrong with being informed prior to continuing with the evidence collection process.

In those situations, state and criminal misdemeanor and felony charges should be your focus, company, second.

But-if you read the request-it doesn't say a specific "time", like within 30 seconds, within 5 minutes. You have the right to have an attorney present if you are suspected of committing any crime, before ANY questioning.

Think like a lawyer--you'll be glad you did.

91.17c. doesn't override the Constitution my friend.