The crux of this problems stem from this:
" He knew participants were subject to random testing during the class.
He should have known better than to drink even one beer with that class before him."
We don't KNOW that he, in fact, DID have one before class which is why I brought up the residual level of alcohol on his breath.
0.02 shouldn't have gotten him kicked out of class but PCSO said "no operating a vehicle with ANY alcohol in your system." So the random test proves he had a drink (or ten) SOMETIME in the recent past.
I think his punishment fit the crime for driving a car with ANY alcohol in his system - but to re-imburse for the class? Without proof of drinking immediately prior?
I think thats a stretch.
Actually I'm surprised they DON'T have a volunteer drinker or two to show the affects of drinking one right before class, and/or several the night before.
I would think that would make them better Sheriff's. (They could then go to work for Fair Bluff PD)
More information about formatting options