Pilot Popped for Flying With Cannabis Chocolate Bars Loses DC Circuit Case
"That the marijuana was purchased in Colorado does not change the fact that marijuana is illegal under federal law and in federal airspace," Judge David Sentelle wrote for the unanimous three-judge federal appeals panel.
March 05, 2019 at 12:23 PM
4 minute read
More than two years after an emergency landing in Kansas led local authorities to discover cannabis-infused chocolate bars on his single-engine airplane, Utah resident Jeff Siegel's challenge to the revocation of his pilot's license sputtered Tuesday in a federal appeals court.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a federal agency's decision to revoke Siegel's private pilot certificate. The unanimous panel, led by Judge David Sentelle, broadly rejected Siegel's claim that regulators, including the National Transportation Safety Board, had failed to consider several “mitigating factors,” including the fact that the cannabis chocolate bars had been purchased in Colorado, one of several states that permit recreational marijuana use.
“This argument is factually incorrect,” Sentelle wrote. “The board explicitly considered these purported 'mitigating factors,' but simply did not agree that they warranted a lighter sanction.”
Sentelle said the federal regulation barring pilots from flying with cannabis products on their airplanes “does not distinguish between drugs transported for personal use and those intended for resale.” It made no difference, he wrote, that the cannabis products had been purchased in Colorado.
“Likewise, that the marijuana was purchased in Colorado does not change the fact that marijuana is illegal under federal law and in federal airspace. Although Siegel characterizes the board's decision as a failure to consider these factors, it is more accurate to say that he is simply unhappy with the result of the NTSB's consideration.”
Siegel was represented by Greg Winton of the Annapolis, Maryland-based Aviation Law Firm. Winton could not be immediately reached for comment Tuesday.
In October 2016, the engine of Siegel's airplane failed almost immediately after takeoff, forcing him to land on a road in the small town of Iola, Kansas. Siegel and his sole passenger were not seriously injured. But in a bag onboard, authorities responding said they found three chocolate bars infused with cannabis, leading to problems of a different sort for Siegel.
Siegel was charged in Kansas with marijuana possession, but that charge dismissed. Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration grappled with the proper punishment for Siegel, in an administrative process that was influenced by the tension between the federal prohibition on cannabis and state laws permitting medical or recreational use. Siegel was not alleged to have been under the influence of cannabis during his brief flight in October 2016.
Following an investigation of the incident, the acting FAA administration issued an emergency order in February 2018 revoking Siegel's license. An in-house judge at the National Transportation Safety Board later lowered the sanction to a 90-day license suspension, noting that the cannabis-infused chocolate bars had been “purchased legally, apparently in Colorado” and that the bars were not being transported for commercial purposes.
On appeal, the NTSB revoked Siegel's license. Defending the board's decision, Justice Department lawyers argued in a court filing that the NTSB “rightly found it immaterial that the drugs might have been procured in Colorado,” stressing that cannabis remains illegal under federal law.” Justice Department lawyers also argued that Siegel's punishment was consistent with the board's precedent.
Siegel's cannabis possession will not completely shut him out of the cockpit. Under federal rules, pilots are allowed to re-apply for license a year after the revocation date. Siegel pressed his case in the D.C. Circuit to avoid through a full recertification process and having the revocation of his private pilot certificate on his record.
Read the D.C. Circuit's ruling below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250