DUI While at Anchor?

[micah719]

Emigrate; the damage is irreversible and self-propagating. I understand DUI's on boats are not a problem in Wyoming, though this is outweighed by Riding Under Influence; or in DC, Maladministration Under Influence.

Once upon a time, there were the Peel principles.....

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Now, we have the Führerprinzip. You will obey my Authoritah!

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

[Kerry1]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

This reminds me of the joke thread where a woman was stopped by a Fish and Wildlife cop for having a fishing pole in her boat.
She wasn't fishing.
Cop wanted to give her a ticket, saying "you have all the equipment".
She said she could accuse him of rape because he "had all the equipment..."

As a Kiwi this whole conversation sounds somewhat bizarre. The US has a reputation for being "law suit crazy" and this goes somewhat towards supporting that generality. I think it verges on very dangerous territory when a charge can be levelled at a person who has done no harm (being securely anchored, and having a drink) merely on the presumption of what could happen. A different story if someone gets wasted and then faces a situation that needs the sort of focus that requires sobriety. It seems most countries are legislated to the point that, merely if a representative of the law "needs"you to be criminalized, they need only consult the rule book- not what you have actually done. In other words - breathing probably contravenes some law but it is winked at until they want to get you (for any reason). In this subversive way, a person is presumed guilty until proven innocent- the very opposite of what Western law tradition overtly stands for.
Just my two cents...

[JayWit]

Did someone get a DUI while anchored or was it just a question? If you are asking a cop he would probably say he would give you a DUI. In my experience few cops know the law and the ones you asked are probably thinking if I had to come over there, you are causing troubles and I am going to give you a problem.

On the comment of you might have to operate the boat if it drags, that would not hold up in court. What if it drags and you are on shore drinking? You still might go save your boat. What if drags and you just say screw it and ground it? Well then their logic of "if it drags" is nothing but "this is what I would do" (since most cops a not that smart and would drive the boat drunk).

In closing, if the keys are not in the ignition you well probably not get a DUI because cops are lazy and don't want to do the paper work for something that won't hold in court. On the other hand if you are causing problems and could be a hazard, they might do something as a way to protect (essentially doing their job) or out of spite because you pissed them off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kerry1]

Love both those quotes MICAH 719. This is one reason why Kiwis are not happy with the TPPA because it appears that we will lose at least some sovereignty in the deal. Not to mention the secrecy aspect of it.

[fatherchronica]

I think it would, or should, be more like drinking in a parked motor home at a campsite. And that said, everyone behind the driver is allowed to drink on a moving motorhome, like in a limo. With the caveat that what if you were needed all of a sudden and would therefore be DUI, that is a violation of the 4th Amendment, you are innocent until proven guilty. Police and firemen are always on call in emergencies, so by their reckoning they should be arrested every time they have a beer on their days off, just in case. It is that kind of irrational thinking that has cost the majority of policemen my respect. If I had a car anymore I would wear a jumpsuit when I drove, so those same cops couldn't say I reached for my waistband when they shot me in their terror of, it seems, all of us. I would force them to waste a perfectly good throw down to explain my murder. I believe you could beat an anchored DUI in court, but it would cost you a lot. But I digress and ramble all at the same time. Some of what I write is facetious, by the by, I only write it to anger the voices I hear.

[Lokiyawl]

Well put. Having spent 30+ years in Florida, my interactions with all but one member of the Marine Patrol have been favourable. (and that one person got so many complaints that he was relocated) Florida is a tourist State with no State income tax so in general it seems that an effort is made to present a friendly face to visitors and the locals benefit as well. While I would not go as far as to say that I felt that the Marine Patrol in Florida were there more to serve the public rather than to enforce the laws, I did feel that in general that they were fair so I would be very surprised if anyone ever gets cited for drinking a beer while cooking his steaks. James

Originally Posted by denverd0n

You may have meant this as a rhetorical question, but in reality it is something that confuses a lot of people. As such, it is a question worth some discussion.

The truth is that, in many (perhaps most), cases you are more likely to get a reliable answer from the internet. Cops are not lawyers. They do not know all the laws, and they do not know all of the legal interpretations that have been applied by courts. These things, however, can almost always be found on the internet. For the laws relevant to this particular question, see Florida statutes 327.35 (Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine) and 327.02, paragraph 30 (Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine).

Bottom line is that, despite what a lot of people think, the truth is that a police officer is just about the worst choice for questions about what is legal and what is not.

To the OP's question, as mentioned already, the law is clear that if you are "in charge of, in command of, or in actual physical control of a vessel," then you are "operating" it as far as the state of Florida is concerned.

Having said that, I am unable to find even one instance of anyone being convicted or fined for boating under the influence when they were legally anchored for the night. I suspect the reason for that is that the prosecuting attorneys all know they could never get a conviction in a case like that, and so they would not pursue the case in the first place.

I am not one to ever suggest to someone else that they should ignore the law. I will tell you, though, that when I'm anchored for the night, I routinely have a drink or two and absolutely do not worry about any legal consequences of that.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

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

I need to totally agree with the immaturity of the response but do think a vessel at anchor should basically have the same rights as a home on the hard.

The way things are going in the US, it is going from needing a degree in criminal justice to taking the dregs for cops because any one with brains won't take the job. I can't see cop bashing nor bashing the second amendment. Lets bash, he was such a good boy or the A-hole was wrong.

You couldn't give me the job but have never had a cop problem. A simple yes sir and no sir goes a long way.

[ASD]

Interesting discussion. It would be even better if this was challenged in the court system. DUI while anchored, mmmmmm

[RaymondR]

In accordance with Rule 3(f) (General definitions) the term “ vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

Is the lack of a competent crew considered an "exceptional" circumstance.

[Yachtmasteroz]

Here in Australia, you don't have to be driving a vessel. You only have to be in charge of a vessel. Try to get out of that one. - My wife doesn't drink and she is always in charge

[micah719]

Originally Posted by Kerry1

Love both those quotes MICAH 719. This is one reason why Kiwis are not happy with the TPPA because it appears that we will lose at least some sovereignty in the deal. Not to mention the secrecy aspect of it.

I'm not up to speed on Kiwi sovereignty, but I suspect it is much the same as Aussie; a farce already. Why are the Aus gubbermints listed as corporations on the SEC in Washington? Why are we using a Constitution that was enacted under UK law (which has no jurisdiction in Aus anymore...), yet was never ratified by the Aussie people as was stipulated? I doubt TPP is going to change anything all that much...perhaps the grave an inch or two deeper, but a grave it is.

It spits on the legacy of the ANZACS, upon whose sacrifice both our nations gained true independence as nations....or so we are led to believe. Someone stole it along the way, about 1919/20 actually, and the bandit regime wants things to continue just the way they are. That there are rather sticky legal problems with certain events (e.g. legitimacy of Aus involvement in WW2?......ouch!) is perhaps part of the reason that there is no way this will ever be permitted to come out openly; misinformation, disinformation, and other dirty tricks, because many just have too much to lose. We're seeing the same thing happen in the US; the subject of this thread merely deals with one symptom, and the answers so far demonstrate how worn the gilding on the cage bars has become.

Chief Garden Gnome Rompuy of the EU stated in 2009 that the EU system is intended to be the model for governance of all the world, region by region. Some day, if these kind achieve their dream, you could be anchored off some isolated islet vaguely near Bora Bora and be boarded and dealt with just like the Floridians. No sundowners for you, "citizen"! Actually, I doubt by that stage a mundane like us could even get there....it will be declared a preserve and only the $500 billion yacht owners and their apparatchiks will be able to enjoy it.

[Steadman Uhlich]

Operation Dry Water: Law enforcement officers to target drunk boaters this weekend - Sports - Crestview News Bulletin - Crestview, FL

There were 62 boating deaths in South Florida in 2013, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Alcohol was suspected to have played a role in some of the accidents.

Police believe their presence on the water alone is a deterrent.

“The word will get out that we’re going to stop you,” said Lupo Jimenez with the Miami-Dade Police Department. “If you’ve been drinking and you’re operating a boat, we’re going to handle it the same way we would handle a DUI.”

_____________

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us...ting.html?_r=0

Last year, the state logged 736 accidents; 420 people were injured and 62 died. In 2012, there were 704 accidents. California, with the second largest number of boaters, had less than half as many accidents that year.

Boaters everywhere are allowed to drink openly on boats, but the driver cannot exceed a .08 blood alcohol level (.02 if the driver is under 21.)
Last year only 303 citations for boating under the influence were issued for the entire state.

[avb3]

Let's keep the discussion to the facts, and not wander all over the map with conspiracy theories.

It's the fastest way to get a thread closed.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by avb3

Let's keep the discussion to the facts, and not wander all over the map with conspiracy theories.

It's the fastest way to get a thread closed.

Probably not a bad idea!

[Rough Magic]

"What? Is there some new US law that states boats at anchor need to be manned at all times?"

Yep. The Col-Regs, 1972, require that someone by "on watch" at all times on anchor. This does not apply to a permanent mooring or dock.

I believe that you have to be legally drunk to get a DUI, no matter the circumstances, unless docked or moored, at least here in California.