I-FORD
No, you have missed the point. He was not arrested for what you call
"under the influence and unable to perform his duties as a pilot"
He was however arrested on suspicion of having a blood alcohol concentration above a prescibed level. The 2 things are different.
The ONLY way of obtaining the evidence to arrest is by way of screening breath test, in exactly the same way the same evidence is gained from a car driver.
As for administering that test, there have to be grounds yes. Those grounds can be supported by what another person says, eg what a security screener has told police, BUT, it is for the officer who makes the requirement to justify why he made that it and that officer is the person who has to explain those reasons in court if required. So to claim that a security screeners words alone caused the initial test to be admistered is wrong.
The justification can be many things, only one of which is a smell of alcohol, or more properly intoxicating liquor.
In this case you claim it was wrong because people were inconvienced, and it obviously cost Virgin money. That however, is a result of what happened. It does not make the Police Officers (note Police Officers, not security screeners, as they had no part in that decision making process) actions wrong.
I'm afraid, like it or not, a breath test was administered, and that test was positive, as a result the pilot in question was treated the same way as a driver would be, and arrested. The arrest is nessesary because there is no other way of moving to the next stage. At a later stage, and from experience at the Police station in question, that later stage could be around an hour, a blood test was taken which was below the prescribed level. But that test result was then not the time of arrest.
You can shout and scream about how wrong it is for security screeners to call police. But please remember 2 things.
The amount of abuse aimed at them by some on here is hardly going to make them more sympathetic towards pilots, and anyway, if the choice is call police, or ignore it and risk their own job, which option do you think they will take?
Secondly, any member of the public can call police about something they think police should deal with, those things include, drinking & driving, theft, terrorism and sexual offences. That is the way the Policing system in the UK, and many other countries is based. Although a high proportion of those calls turn out to be wrong, they are in the vast majority of cases made with the best of intentions.
Lastly it has been assumed by many, and sadly whipped up by implication by one, that the original call was malicious. There is nothing supporting that assumption. The point about innocent until proven guilty applies equally to the security screener, however much you may dislike that.
cargo boy
Part of the above answers your first question.
As regards to calling police regarding smelling alcohol on screening staff, you can, but unless they are drunk, it wont achieve anything. They are not subject to this peice of legislation, and that you smell alocohol on them isn't a police matter. I'd suggest you ring the relevent aiport authority instead.
As for your last comment.......Do you really think that helps?