DUI While at Anchor?

[PortClydeMe]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Interesting how some associate partying with drinking as though alcohol is essential to their enjoyment.

The extent to which some here want to argue the link is rather dysfunctional, e.g., it's their "civil right" to act stupid.

I often enjoy a nice cup of Colombian coffee or a lemon iced tea. Sometimes a ginger ale or a glass of milk just hits the spot. However, after working long and hard to attain the station in life where I can also opt for a single-malt Scotch paired with a fine Cuban cigar, I personally abhor the gall of some authority figure attempting to instruct me on my choices in life. Thus, I consider it my "human right" to detest any encroachment on my personal pursuit of happiness while on my boat at anchor, or otherwise, for that matter. Should at any time I choose to have more than one and be well over the "legal limit", then there I shall gladly sail. Just like my parents' generation did, and theirs before them. It's often very fun to be responsibly drunk.

"Stupidity", I leave for other people to explore and navigate.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

No offense, but one was not in Florida, one was definitely not anchored for the night, and two don't have enough details to determine what the circumstances were. So I stand by my previous statement. I cannot find even one, single incident of anyone in Florida being convicted and/or fined for BUI after they were legally anchored for the night. Not one.

Yes, there are lots of apocryphal stories. Lots of stuff on forums similar to this one where someone relates a story they heard, or tells what happened to their brother's uncle's cousin. If any of these resulted in court action, though, then it should not be hard to find that on official county and/or state websites, where all court actions are recorded nowadays. But they aren't there.

I'm just not believing that this happens.

No offence but are you even reading the links . . . . let me put just the very first one in plain text for you - in florida, check ; at anchor, check; BUI, check

Location: Coast of Florida Charge BUI (Marine DUI) Sitting at anchor (55 lb. Delta anchor with 200 ft. of 10mm chain) on a 46' sailboat. Motor is off keys in drawer, sails are down and secure. No one on board was driving, steering, the boat was not moving and was chained to the anchor that was securely set. Leo justification if the anchor was to drag I would have to operate the boat. I was intoxicated good chance i was rude and obnoxious.
edit Broward County sheriff (marine patrol). We has the BBQ fired up to make dinner the smoke attracted them. We had drinks in hand getting ready for dinner then bed.

[CarlF]

I believe the only place you can get drunk without risking arrest is a private home.

In most states, you can be arrested for being intoxicated in public while sitting in a car as a passenger -- a car is ruled a public place.

There are also cases of conviction (not just ticketing) for DUI of someone who was passed out drunk in the drivers seat of his parked car with the keys out of the ignition but within his reach.

Seems fair for boats too. But this is about being drunk not having a drink.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

No offence but are you even reading the links...?

Yeah. I read the links. And, yeah, the first one says that it happened in Broward County. See, the thing is that Broward county puts all of this sort of thing on the internet. You can look up every ticket, fine, and court case. This one? Not on there.

Now, maybe it just happened so recently that it isn't on the website yet. That's a possibility that I will certainly acknowledge. The other possibility is that it is just someone making stuff up (or grossly exaggerating what actually happened). Believe it or not, people do--sometimes--post things on the internet that are not true. An anonymous post about something that happened in a non-specific location is not exactly what I would call verifiable confirmation.

Even if it is true, I note that he says he was drunk and obnoxious with the officer. That's always a very good way to get a ticket that you were not going to get, if only you had been a little bit respectful.

So, still, maybe it did happen once, very recently. I could be wrong about "never." Regardless, it's not like they're out there every night, patrolling every anchorage, and writing tickets left and right. I'm just not seeing this as a problem that is worth all the angst we're seeing in this thread. It is not something that I, personally, am going to worry about in even the least little way the next time I'm anchored out and having a drink or two.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by PortClydeMe

Should at any time I choose to have more than one and be well over the "legal limit", then there I shall gladly sail. Just like my parents' generation did, and theirs before them. It's often very fun to be responsibly drunk.

"Stupidity", I leave for other people to explore and navigate.

Except the science proves this wrong. It has been shown, over and over, repeatably by numerous, independent studies that impaired is impaired. Yes regular drinkers may be able to hide it better but your reflexes and judgment will be impaired if you drink.

Even Car & Driver did their own drinking and driving test and came to the same conclusions.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

See, the thing is that Broward county puts all of this sort of thing on the internet. You can look up every ticket, fine, and court case. This one? Not on there.

mmmm . . . . Broward county: Case Search and Florida state https://www.myfloridacounty.com/ori/index.do

It looks to me like you need a proper name or a case number. They have blocked google's web crawlers from both databases. It looks like you CAN NOT search for free text like "BUI anchor" . . . so how are you sure this case is not there?

[PortClydeMe]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Except the science proves this wrong. It has been shown, over and over, repeatably by numerous, independent studies that impaired is impaired. Yes regular drinkers may be able to hide it better but your reflexes and judgment will be impaired if you drink.

Even Car & Driver did their own drinking and driving test and came to the same conclusions.

Impaired to some is sauntering effortlessly for others. But, there's no side-stepping the fact that it does take some practice. The key to happiness in life is knowing your limitations. Some folks like to skydive, yet you won't find me within 5 miles of any parachute.

0.08 BAC feels like, well... "just getting started".

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

...so how are you sure this case is not there?

Well, let's just put it this way... When you are close friends with a member of the Bar Association, you can sometimes get access to websites that are not usually available to the general public.

And just to note: I admitted that I could be wrong about "never."

Still not something that I think is a real problem.

[ryon]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I believe it's just a matter of time until a court case reigns in boarding without probable cause for safety and head inspections. Maybe a "long time" but I hope not.

The CG's claim to this right comes from a difficult to defend rationalization of an 18th century duty to inspect cargoes coming from international waters for tax duty. At the time, the primary source of the Federal Government's income was duties on ship cargoes. This really was

Safety inspections was not the purpose or even imagined - a good thing since the life jacket had not been invented.

Unless a vessel is thought to be coming from international waters or is engaged in commerce (commercial fishing) the same 4th amendment protections should be applied as for a motor vehicle. It's hard to see why boats and cars deserve such different treatment.

It's because "everybody knows" they have the authority, and because you will rarely ever find a case diminishing their authority allowed to go all the way to a precedent-setting judgement.

But it's mostly because there is nothing to disincentive-ize this sort of behavior. What does the cop stand to lose if he puts you thru years of hell, trying to clear your name from a bad bust? The state does all the legal work, and the taxpayer eventually picks up the tab. Meanwhile, he's out there generating more revenue.

[Sailingcouple13]

Like I said earlier, all you keep your boats out of Florida.......well we will make a few exceptions for the silicon go fast boats. Always appreciated see you in Key West in November

Sent from my SM-G900P using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by ryon

It's because "everybody knows" they have the authority, and because you will rarely ever find a case diminishing their authority allowed to go all the way to a precedent-setting judgement.

But it's mostly because there is nothing to disincentive-ize this sort of behavior. What does the cop stand to lose if he puts you thru years of hell, trying to clear your name from a bad bust? The state does all the legal work, and the taxpayer eventually picks up the tab. Meanwhile, he's out there generating more revenue.

Pure unadulterated Bull ****. Lets go back to the wild west and no law enforcement or little.

Damn lets vilify the cop or the Coastie making a living.

Boo Hoo, grow up.

[MBWhite]

Wow, 12 pages and still going strong.

If I was smart I wouldn't be posting to this thread but hey, a closed mouth gathers no foot!

I do know in the state of Illinois the Dept. of Conservation can and does give DUI's for DUI while at anchor. Additionally, this goes on your driving record so if you are over .08% your driving license is automatically suspended.

I am in agreement about operating pretty much any vehicle while being impaired, but this does really need to be clarified that it is only for impairments that do not have a corporate sponsorship. Have a couple of drinks and kill someone, most people are looking at jail but if your employer makes you work overtime and you kill someone driving home after working 30 hours straight, well that one is most likely bad luck.

Medical Residency procedures have already been studied:

The two main research papers documenting a relationship between extended work duty and auto accidents are from Laura K. Barger, Ph.D., and Dr. Colin P. West.
In the Barger study, the authors conducted a nationwide Web-based survey of 2,737 interns (N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;352:125-34). They found that an extended work shift (greater than 24 hours) was 2.3 times as likely for a motor vehicle crash, and 5.9 times for a near-miss accident. The researchers calculated that every extended shift in the month increased the crash risk by 9.1% and near-miss risk by 16.2%.
In the West study, the authors performed a prospective, 5-year longitudinal study of a cohort of 340 first-year Mayo Clinic residents in internal medicine (Mayo Clin. Proc. 2012;87:1138-44). In self-generated quarterly filings, 11.3% reported a motor vehicle crash and 43.3% a near-miss accident. Sleepiness (as well as other variables such as depression, burnout, diminished quality of life, and fatigue) significantly increased the odds of a motor vehicle incident in the subsequent 3-month period. Each 1-point increase in fatigue or Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was associated with a 52% and 12% respective increase in a motor vehicle crash.



And there is a bit more on the web should anyone be interested, however should it be a mandatory law that all participants of single handed races longer than 24 hours in duration upon completion of the event receive citations and automatic suspension of motor vehicle driving privileges for operating a vehicle while impaired?

[ryon]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Pure unadulterated Bull ****. Lets go back to the wild west and no law enforcement or little.

Damn lets vilify the cop or the Coastie making a living.

Boo Hoo, grow up.

Aw, you're just bein' nasty.

Nobody watching the HMS Bounty hearings could be left unmoved by the testimony of the USCG Commander who oversaw the rescue operation. I just spent the better part of an hour trying to find that video online without success. I hope someone can give us a link.

We are all indebted to the teamwork, professionalism, and heroism that these men and women must occasionally perform to keep us safe and happy.

Now you cut out the crap, and get back on topic. The mods have already warned us once.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by ryon

Aw, you're just bein' nasty.

Nobody watching the HMS Bounty hearings could be left unmoved by the testimony of the USCG Commander who oversaw the rescue operation. I just spent the better part of an hour trying to find that video online without success. I hope someone can give us a link.

We are all indebted to the teamwork, professionalism, and heroism that these men and women must occasionally perform to keep us safe and happy.

Now you cut out the crap, and get back on topic. The mods have already warned us once.

I'm not sure which side you are on. The original was about a BUI at anchor with a steak on the grill and a drink in your hand. I probably should have been locked up for worst than that. I never had a problem with law enforcement. Yep, if someone is hammed an not coherent enough to know they are dragging, good for law enforcement.

[ryon]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I'm not sure which side you are on. The original was about a BUI at anchor with a steak on the grill and a drink in your hand. I probably should have been locked up for worst than that. I never had a problem with law enforcement. Yep, if someone is hammed an not coherent enough to know they are dragging, good for law enforcement.

Please point to the place in the OP where it said "incoherent, hammered, and dragging anchor".

The original was about a BUI at anchor with a steak on the grill and a drink in your hand.