Opinion ID: 799063
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Under the Influence of Alcohol

Text: Mr. Cope challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 342. [5] The district court found that even without 18 U.S.C. § 343's presumption that an individual with a BAC above .10 is under the influence, the combination of Mr. Cope's red eyes and puffy face, his odor of alcohol during and after the flight, the results of the breathalyzer tests taken nearly three hours after the flight left Austin, and expert testimony that an individual need not exhibit visible signs of alcohol consumption to be impaired, was overwhelming [evidence] that [Mr.] Cope was under the influence of alcohol during the flight. Cope, 2011 WL 2491283, at . The term under the influence of alcohol as used in 18 U.S.C. § 342 is not defined. When a term is undefined in the statute, we give it its ordinary, everyday meaning. See Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179, 187, 115 S.Ct. 788, 130 L.Ed.2d 682 (1995); United States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, 1204 (10th Cir.2002). We have explained that [t]he prohibition of operating an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol can be reasonably understood due to the ordinary meaning of the words. Sorenson v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 684 F.2d 683, 686 (10th Cir.1982). The term under the influence [of alcohol] is commonly understood to mean . . . a state of intoxication that lessens a person's normal ability for clarity and control. Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Steven, 134 F.3d 526, 528 (3d Cir.1998); see also Black's Law Dictionary 1665 (9th ed. 2009) (defining under the influence as deprived of clearness of mind and self-control because of drugs or alcohol); id. at 898 (defining intoxication as [a] diminished ability to act with full mental and physical capabilities because of alcohol or drug consumption). As the ensuing discussion concludes, the trial evidence was sufficient for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Mr. Cope's ability for clarity and control was lessened and that he was thus under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Cope contends that he was not under the influence of alcohol because he did not exhibit outward signs of impairment. [6] He relies on Mr. Obodzinski's statements that he properly performed his duties and that both Mr. Obodzinski and Mr. Jones testified that, other than the smell of alcohol, Mr. Cope did not show any external signs of impairment. The defendants in United States v. Prouse, 945 F.2d 1017 (8th Cir.1991), made a similar argument. Each member of the three-man flight crew was convicted of operating a common air carrier while under the influence of alcohol in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 342. Id. at 1020. The three men were observed the night before their flight drinking heavily late into the night. Id. They arrived at the airport with flushed faces, bloodshot eyes, and an odor of stale alcohol on [their] breath. Id. at 1021. Blood alcohol tests taken after the flight showed that their BACs were .13, .06, and .08. Id. at 1022. Using the results of a second blood test to estimate the crew members' BACs when the flight departed, a government expert testified that their BACs would have been in the following ranges when the flight departed:.15-.21, .08-.14, and .10-.16. Id. The government presented expert testimony that, even at the low end of these ranges, all of the defendants could be considered under the influence of alcohol. Id. The members of the flight crew challenged their conviction on several grounds, including sufficiency of the evidence. They argued that their conviction should be reversed because there was no direct evidence of impairment. Id. at 1025. The Eighth Circuit cited numerous factors in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction, including that the flight crew members were intoxicated the night before, arrived late to work with bloodshot eyes and smelling of stale alcohol, failed to check in with an FAA official when they knew he was investigating whether they had violated FAA alcohol regulations, and had relatively high BACs two hours and forty-five minutes after the flight departed. Id. The Eighth Circuit stated that, [b]ased on this evidence, the case was not even close. Id. In this case, similar evidence supports the district court's conclusion that Mr. Cope was under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Cope admitted to having numerous drinks the night before the flight. He told Mr. Obodzinski that he had consumed a couple of beers, went to a bar with a friend, consumed some whiskey, and bought beer at a gas station. [7] Also, in response to Mr. Obodzinski's admonition that he should call off sick if he would fail a breathalyzer test, Mr. Cope responded, Well, I guess I better call off sick then, Appx., Vol. I, at 196-97, indicating his awareness of his alcohol consumption. Mr. Obodzinski testified that Mr. Cope had red eyes and a puffy face when they met in the lobby of their Austin hotel on the morning of the flight. Mr. Obodzinski and Mr. Jones also both testified that Mr. Cope smelled of alcohol. Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Cope's BAC was .094 nearly three hours after the flight departed from Austin. Ms. Burbach testified that Mr. Cope's cognitive and psychomotor function was impaired, Appx., Vol. II, at 437, that his ability to operate an aircraft was diminished, and that he could not do so safely. In arguing that his lack of outward signs of impairment prevents us from upholding the district court's conclusion that he was under the influence of alcohol, Mr. Cope improperly equates outward impairment with being under the influence of alcohol. Title 18 U.S.C. § 342 prohibits operating a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol, not operating a common carrier while outwardly impaired. Although outward signs of impairment may be probative that someone is under the influence of alcohol, one can be under the influence of alcohol without outward signs of impairment. Cf. United States v. Pelletier, 105 Fed.Appx. 216, 217 (9th Cir.2004) (unpublished) ([The defendant's] DUI conviction required proof that he operated the vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol, but did not require proof of an actual act of unsafe driving.); State v. Neal, 143 N.M. 341, 176 P.3d 330, 338 (App.2007) (The [state] statute gives notice, according to the plain meaning of the word `influence,' that the Legislature intends to criminalize a condition less than intoxication, but `influenced' to any degree by alcohol, no matter how slight.). Further, Mr. Cope's argument only goes so far. First, the argument overlooks that Mr. Obodzinski observed Mr. Cope's red eyes and puffy face before the flight and smelled alcohol on Mr. Cope during the flight. But far more important, Ms. Burbach testified that an individual can be under the influence of alcohol without exhibiting outward signs of impairment. She explained that experienced drinkers, such as Mr. Cope, can mask the external signs of intoxication and that ability does not mean that Mr. Cope was not cognitively impaired and under the influence of alcohol. According to Ms. Burbach, a person with Mr. Cope's BAC is cognitively impaired and unable to operate an aircraft safely. [8] [V]iewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the government, Hoskins, 654 F.3d at 1090, we hold that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Mr. Cope was under the influence of alcohol when he operated the flight from Austin to Denver and violated 18 U.S.C. § 342. Even though there is evidence that Mr. Cope was not outwardly impaired, the government presented evidence that an individual can be under the influence of alcohol without exhibiting outward signs of impairment and that Mr. Cope was cognitively impaired. Mr. Cope's BAC was .094 over three hours after his flight departed. This high BAC combined with the evidence that Mr. Cope drank a significant amount of alcohol the night before the flight, implicitly admitted that he would fail a breathalyzer test, smelled of alcohol, and had red eyes and a puffy face before the flight, is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to find that Mr. Cope was under the influence of alcohol for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 342 when he operated the flight from Austin to Denver. [9]