Bent Wookie

I guess that's a possibility. However, there has to be a reason to administer the roadside test- admitting to drinking, slight smell of alcohol, etc. Key is, although there might have been some evidence of alcohol consumption, there probably wasn't enough for an impaired charge. So while he might not have been 'drunk' or 'sauced' in the typical sense, I would say, based on the reports, he had consumed alcohol at one time or another, just not enough to warrant a charge.

As far as civil liability goes, it will be interesting to see what role, if any, the company played in it. I do know there is case law making establishments (bars, pubs, etc) partly responsible in cases such as this. This even extends to house parties and small intimate gatherings. So, you have some family over for xmas and your brother-in-law gets liquored up using your booze that you may or may not have served him. He decides to drive home and kills someone. Yes, you could be held civilly responsible.