DUI While at Anchor?

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by SURV69

...one does not have to be so drunk as to be incapacitated in any way.

That depends on your tolerance to alcohol and how "practiced" you are at being drunk.

When I was in college, and a relative neophyte drinker, I went through an exercise with the assistance of the campus police. Took a drink, had my BAC measured. Took another, measure BAC again. Continue until I reach the level of being legally "intoxicated." I'll tell you that I was pretty darned drunk by the time I got to the "intoxicated" level. Drunk enough that I most certainly would NEVER try to operate any sort of vehicle in that condition!

Now, admittedly, some of the fellows who had been drinking longer were not quite as drunk as I was. Many of them, in fact, were absolutely certain that they were nearly sober and could operate just fine. But all of them--every last one--failed typical roadside tests like touching your nose, standing on one foot, and that sort of thing. Which tells me that however sober they may have THOUGHT they were, they were probably just as drunk as I was, or at least darned close.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Did you read the OP? At anchor, grilling and have a drink at the end of the day didn't sound like reckless endangerment. I do agree about the cop having every right if someone is exhibiting reckless endangerment or lipping off if it's a toss up situation.

Exactly . . . I couldn't have stated it better myself!

[PortClydeMe]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Since when has reckless endangerment become your 'civil right'?

That statute, or its equivalent in many states, provides law enforcement the authority to protect people from their own stupidity. I'd rather vest such authority in them rather than leave it to lots of the moron boat operators about whom we routinely complain about here.

Your civil rights don't trump that of others.

You surely have the right to "vest" in any way you choose. As a civilian, I choose to never forget that "civil servants" are tax-payer supported servants to civilians, so I "vest authority" in the constitution and my civil rights, which "trump" most everything else in my world. If someone tries to board my vessel at anchor while I enjoy a nice single-malt Scotch, I might deem it appropriate to shoot him in the head and let the courts figure it all out. That way, I can enjoy my Scotch.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by LeLY

I highly doubt, unless you were giving the cop a reason, a cop is just going to motor up and arrest you.

If you count LOOKING at a cop as an acceptable reason then you are correct.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ntact-him.html

There are plenty of examples of cops using the most minor issue or even making one up in order to stop or arrest someone.

[senormechanico]

Just another reason to call it FloriDUH.

[Udacha]

As I indicated in a previous post, I knew a few Sheriffs. I was at one of their shindigs ( all were drinking ) that sobriety test came up in conversation and they made a joke of it saying it is designed to lose, you can not beat it.

They have quite the double standard as I watched a few of them leave with a beer between the thighs

[timbenner]

Originally Posted by contrail

Let's add the Coast Guard definitions: you are underway if you are not anchored or moored. So, by definition, if you are anchored you are NOT underway. If you are not underway, how can you be driving?

Uhhh - Now we're getting somewhere. I'll hang my hat on that logic.

However, the cop still gave us a DUI anyway, took us to jail, permanently scared our driving record with the DUI (even though we were in a boat), increased our car and boat insurance for a decade, cost us $10,000 in legal fees, plus their idiotic abuse classes, etc., etc.

My point of bringing this up, is that my small poll taken from the few "Boat Police" I asked, said that they would inflict the aforementioned nonsense, even though I agree with your logic above. The conclusion is that most over zealous Boat Police would arrest you, even though it might not stick, but in the end we're screwed!!

Makes boating in the Bahamas worth the travel.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by deckofficer

Here is a unbiased report from Boat US, A Strange Case Of Justice - Seaworthy Magazine - BoatUS

Justice didn't just slip through the cracks, it fell into the Grand Canyon.

Deputy Sheriff Perdock was protected from an on scene breathalyzer test by the senior officer on scene. After more than 24 hours he had blood drawn, so by that time he was clear of alcohol in his blood.

Bismark Dinius, the friend of the O'Day owner that happened to be at the tiller of the becalmed sailboat had to sell his home, spend all of his savings, to defend himself in court because the Lake County DA went after him instead of Perdock.

Now, many years after, Perdock decided to run for City Council and was successful in his bid for a seat.

So, do you think justice was served? Maybe the next time Perdock, in a drunken state, kills another boater on Clear Lake it might be, but hey it is Lake County and as a long term resident and former deputy, probably not even for a 2nd time.

It is a typical story of how police receive special treatment that has reaffirmed their feelings that as a law enforcement officer they are above the law.

Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by FSMike

I am not familiar with the "community care doctrine". If you could offer me a citation from the Florida statutes I would be thankful.

My opinion is that you are wrong and Florida Leo can board pretty much any vessel they want to. I have cited multiple professional legal opinions, USCG statements and the law which all appear (to me) to support my opinion. But if you want to ignore all that, or only read half the law, or somehow interpret it differently I don't really care and am not going to argue about.

As to the community care doctrine . . . I am sure you know how to google. There is a lot of material available . . . Courts in a muddle over 4th Amendment’s community caretaking exception

[PortClydeMe]

Originally Posted by timbenner

Uhhh - Now we're getting somewhere. I'll hang my hat on that logic.

However, the cop still gave us a DUI anyway, took us to jail, permanently scared our driving record with the DUI (even though we were in a boat), increased our car and boat insurance for a decade, cost us $10,000 in legal fees, plus their idiotic abuse classes, etc., etc.

My point of bringing this up, is that my small poll taken from the few "Boat Police" I asked, said that they would inflict the aforementioned nonsense, even though I agree with your logic above. The conclusion is that most over zealous Boat Police would arrest you, even though it might not stick, but in the end we're screwed!!

Makes boating in the Bahamas worth the travel.

So, what does this entire thread actually teach wise sailors? It teaches us to factor enough money into our yearly cruising budget to keep Alan Dershowitz on permanent retainer. In America, never shy away from hiring the best legal representation.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Seems like two different things are being discussed here: being legally drunk (ie BAC greater than the local statuatory limit) and just having a drin on board.

Are you Floridians saying that just having a drink will get you busted, or does it take being legally drunk... all while at anchor?

Jim

The implication is that if they have a drink at anchor they will get arrested for BUI which is nonsense. One would have to be over the limit of .08 BAC, and unless the person is very light weight, that is not possible with one normal serving.

For a 200ish pound man one would have to drink 5-6 average strength beers in ONE hour to be over .08 BAC. That is quite a bit of beer.

Where people get in trouble is when drinking goes on for hours. The average man will process about an ounce of alcohol in an hour. A woman does a bit less than an ounce. Say the man started drinking at 5:00pm and has two beers every hour. By the time 6:00pm rolled around, one ounce of alcohol will have been removed from his body but one would still remain. At 7:00pm he will have drunk four beers, processed out two of them but has two left in the body. At 8:00pm, six beers have been drunk, three processed and three remaining. This goes on until midnight and our 200ish pound man, who has only been drinking two beers an hour, is now over .08 BAC.

If the person was drinking 3 beers per hour, the progression is much faster to .08 BAC.

Since women, on average, weigh less than men, they get over .08 BAC quicker than men because of the weight difference AND women process alcohol slightly slower than men.

Just consuming a single drink is not going to get most people over .08 BAC which is what is required for drunk driving and boating offenses in most/all? US states.

Officers are allowed to board/stop boats in the US for safety inspections. This has been going on since the founding of the US. Today, a person's boat may be their house, that boat has no legal protection compared to a house. There was a good write up on this in Passage Maker magazine in the last few years. A some point, there is going to be a case where a person who lives full time on a boat is arrested for something found without a search warrant and this will go to the US Supreme Court. Who knows what opinion they will give.

An RV is a motor vehicle and legal requirements for searches for motor vehicles applies to RVs in NC most of the time. A RV is not a house in NC and I would be shocked if other states consider it so since LEO search requirements often are decided by Fourth Amendment arguments in the Supreme Court. Now that does not mean an LEO can just search every nook and cranny in a vehicle without a search warrant but a LEO can search parts of a vehicle in certain situations without a warrant.

Later,
Dan

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by timbenner

My point of bringing this up, is that my small poll taken from the few "Boat Police" I asked, said that they would inflict the aforementioned nonsense...

They said that, and yet, like I already mentioned, I searched and cannot find even one, single instance of anyone, EVER, being charged with boating under the influence when they were legally anchored for the night. Not one. So despite what they may have said, the evidence is pretty clear that, in fact, they do NOT "inflict the aforementioned nonsense."

[CarlF]

I believe we're seeing a slow "return to normal" in enforcement after 9/11. But Florida seems to be particularly slow. Perhaps it is revenue driven? Or does it just take enough Florida boaters to lean on their legislators?

In 2013, Ohio passed a law specifically barring state and local police from stopping a boat or conducting a safety inspection unless voluntarily requested by the boater. There's an exception for reasonable suspicion of a violation. And of course, the CG continues to have a right to board without cause that goes back to the 18th century.

State law limits boat inspections | The Columbus Dispatch

Is it time for some voter pressure for the same in Florida?

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by PortClydeMe

You surely have the right to "vest" in any way you choose. As a civilian, I choose to never forget that "civil servants" are tax-payer supported servants to civilians, so I "vest authority" in the constitution and my civil rights, which "trump" most everything else in my world. If someone tries to board my vessel at anchor while I enjoy a nice single-malt Scotch, I might deem it appropriate to shoot him in the head and let the courts figure it all out. That way, I can enjoy my Scotch.

That's a rather immature reaction. Not to mention a felony murder just so you can get drunk. Adorable...

[rognvald]

Let me be clear: I would never advocate alcohol/drug abuse that endangers the lives of innocent people. That being said, laws are continually enacted that restrict personal liberties under the guise of protecting the common good. They usually result in abuses. The enactment of Prohibition in US History was pushed by the Woman's Christian Temperance League. It resulted in huge profits in alcohol production for organized crime (Al Capone-Chicago) and countless deaths and contributory crimes committed as a direct result of the industry. It was abandoned because it was senseless and the American people did not like the law. Mothers Against Drunk Driving created the DUI-- a shameless, huge money making scam for cities and counties that has transformed a law (in my opinion) into a legal shakedown of American citizens resulting in fines up to $15k dollars and a DUI industry that is bilking the American public under the guise of safety and protection. Most people live their lives in fear and will jump at any opportunity to be protected . . . even if it entails credible abuses, as in the examples above, or has no quantifiable effect on their safety. We, in America, have seen this also with the Patriot Act which was enacted in clear violation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect America from terrorism and foreign invasion as it trampled upon the rights guaranteed by our forefathers. The problem is that as these measures increase in number, your personal freedoms decrease proportionately. And, eventually we will live in a society of mindless, protected automatons who answer swiftly to the shepherd's call. What's a wolf to do?????