Cannabis Chocolate Bars Landed This Pilot in Trouble. He's Now in the DC Circuit.
“It wasn't intentional. It wasn't deliberate. And it wasn't reckless,” the pilot's lawyer says. “Suspension is the appropriate sanction." A panel of D.C. Circuit judges Wednesday will hear the case.
December 11, 2018 at 06:28 PM
6 minute read
Shortly after takeoff Oct. 1 2016, Jeff Siegel encountered a problem in the skies over Kansas: His airplane's engine failed, forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing on a road near the small town of Iola.
The Lancair Evolution single-engine plane suffered heavy damage, but neither Siegel nor his passenger were seriously hurt. The Kansas State Highway Patrol, called to the scene, found a briefcase onboard that would ultimately put Siegel on the radar of federal officials.
Inside were three chocolate bars labeled “Lab tested to 100 mg of THC,” a reference to tetrahydrocannabinol—the psychoactive chemical in cannabis.
Siegel soon received a notice from the Federal Aviation Administration saying his private pilot certificate would be revoked. Months later, in February 2018, the FAA's acting administrator issued an emergency order formally revoking Siegel's private pilot certificate. According to the FAA, Siegel had not demonstrated the “degree of care, judgment, and responsibility required of the holder of an airman certificate.”
Siegel was not alleged to have been under the influence of cannabis, and his passenger—now his wife—later claimed she had packed the chocolate bars without his knowledge. He faced a drug possession charge in Kansas that was later dropped.
His challenge to the FAA's penalty is set to come before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday morning, in a case that muddles transportation safety rules with the tension between states and the federal government over the lawfulness of marijuana.
Siegel's lawyer, Greg Winton of the Annapolis-based Aviation Law Firm, said the case is the first he's aware of involving the revocation of a pilot certificate over “simple possession” of cannabis, as opposed to trafficking. Winton is set to argue in the D.C. Circuit before a panel of three judges: Sri Srinivasan, Gregory Katsas and David Sentelle.
In court papers, Winton has argued that the FAA ignored mitigating factors—such as the fact that the chocolate bars were purchased legally, “apparently in Colorado”—and went against agency policy with such a stiff punishment. A suspension, Siegel has argued, would better fit the offense.
Winton has also argued that Siegel inadvertently took flight with the cannabis-infused chocolate bars.
“It wasn't intentional. It wasn't deliberate. And it wasn't reckless,” Winton said in an interview. “Suspension is the appropriate sanction, I think, in that circumstance.”
An FAA spokeswoman declined to comment on the case but said the agency “has been consistent in its position that marijuana is a 'significantly impairing' drug with respect to operating an aircraft.”
➤➤ Get the latest cannabis lawyering, compliance and commentary straight to your inbox with Higher Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
Even with the revocation of his certificate, Siegel, a Utah resident who runs his own health and nutrition company, will be allowed to reapply for one early next year. He is pressing his case to avoid having the revocation on his record and go through a full recertification process.
The Justice Department, representing the FAA, has argued that the agency's administrator and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have broad authority to revoke certificates when pilots are found to have flown with marijuana or narcotic drugs onboard. The government's lawyers have noted that, while the chocolate bars might have been purchased in Colorado, federal law continues to prohibit possession of cannabis regardless of where it is bought or consumed.
The NTSB “rightly found it immaterial that the drugs might have been procured in Colorado: regardless of any state's law, 'it remains illegal under Federal law to possess this controlled substance and transport it on an aircraft within the national air space,'” Justice Department attorneys wrote in a D.C. Circuit brief, adding that Siegel's punishment was consistent with the board's precedent.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department has adopted a toughened stance—at least on paper—toward state-legalized marijuana. In January, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions withdrew guidance issued under the Obama administration that called for a hands-off approach to marijuana that was legal under state law.
At the NTSB, Siegel found one official who agreed that a lighter punishment was warranted.
In his appeal of the administrator's emergency license revocation, Siegel went to an in-house judge at the NTSB, where his wife testified that she placed the chocolate bars in the briefcase without Siegel's knowledge.
The judge lowered Siegel's penalty to a 90-day suspension of his private pilot certificate, drawing a distinction between his case and a case two years earlier involving 200 pounds of marijuana that were found on an airplane.
“Guess what the sanction was? Revocation,” the administrative law judge said, referring to the earlier case. “How is that consistent with what we've got here today?”
“This was a simple possession of a substance that was purchased legally, apparently in Colorado,” the in-house NTSB judge said. “There wasn't any use involved. There wasn't any transporting for commercial purposes involved.”
Siegel and the FAA's acting administrator both appealed to the full NTSB, which reinstated the revocation of the certificate.
|Read more:
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 All‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
Justices Consider Scope of Corporate Remedies for Trademark Infringement
Albertsons Gives Up on $25B Merger, Sues Kroger Seeking 'Billions of Dollars'
Trending 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