My understanding is that a person under 21 years old with a detectably nonzero BAC is considered to be "under the influence" for the purposes of Oregon DUI law. I can't find a legal source for this, but it is a widely repeated claim; I'm probably just missing the statute or ruling that created this rule. I'm interested in the constitutional issue, not the specific details of Oregon law, so for the purposes of this question, assume that it is indeed true.
Suppose that Bob is seventeen years old. He takes Communion using wine at church. This is legal, because it is for religious purposes.
Bob then drives home from church. He is pulled over, and the officer for some reason suspects that he is intoxicated. A test detects a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream, due to the sacramental wine he consumed at church.
Bob is cited for driving under the influence. Is this a violation of his freedom of religion? His religious beliefs require him to consume wine, but they do not require that he drive after consuming said wine.
Does it matter whether or not he could have feasibily arranged alternative transportation home from church, such as having an adult, who would not be considered intoxicated due to the small amount of alcohol consumed, drive?