BUI at anchor... experiences?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Being dumber than rocks is a lifestyle choice for each to make . So, as long as no one is forced to take drugs (physically) then my attitude is f#ck 'em , just don't expect me to pay for the mess.

[carstenb]

Well here are my 2 cents - from Denmark and the law here. The law requires you to be able to responsibly skipper your boat at all times. What's responsible? More or less up to you unless you are in a speedboat (there's a formula for when a motorboat is a speedboat and when it is just a motorboat). If it's a speedboat 0.5 pro mil (say 2 drinks). Then it is the same law (and punishment) as driving car.

At anchor? Well, the legal definition of sailing a boat (being "let" in Danish) is that the boat is not tied to a dock, bout or other implement that is made fast to the shore/underground, nor is it at anchor. "Let" basically means "underway" even if the boat is not moving.

STill following me? If you are not underway - you are not skippering the boat and therefore you can drink your ass off. If you don't disturb the neighbors you can tell the cops to take a hike.

[psneeld]

In the US....can't speak for other legal systems...

Like all BUI/DUIs....it all starts with the LEO...if they want to...you are doing at least the preliminaries....no many wow many stautes/CFRs yu quote...

If you are charged...DOESN'T matter what the definition of UNDERWAY is...depends on what YOUR LAWYER can convince the judge of or how good/bad the prosecuter is....

The practical side of the world...the chances of a quiet, reasonably maintained cruising boat being boarded at anchor in most civilized countries is very low...as proven by the RARE number of complaints that it happens.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

This is meant to be constructive, let's see how that turns out .........



So for him (and his family) the current "War on Drugs" style approach didn't work out well. Either in the outcome or as a preventative measure to start down that road in the first place (I doubt very much that he was not unaware that recreational drug use had a potential downside).

If someone is likely to be taking recreational drugs then being illegal or not is irrelevant. It's legal to sniff petrol (Gasoline) and easy and cheap to get hold off - but most folks don't do that even though it (apparently!) does have an effect (to get self off noggin ). The fact it is legal to sniff petrol does not make petrol attractive. Same with recreational drugs - the reasons why "you" are not on crack or heroin is the same reasons that most people aren't - and it ain't got anything to do with them being illegal......mostly around knowing they ain't good for you / having better things to do with your life and money.

If Heroin was at least medicalised (i.e. on prescription - cheap or free!) then quality and strength would be consistent so would be a lot less overdoses - even without medical supervision (shooting galleries?) for use. And a lot less health related problems (in the West not many get sick and sometimes die from illegally made alcohol - elsewhere they do becuase the booze gets made badly and from all manner of additives being used, it's the same for drugs - quality control ain't a priority!).

Personally I would prefer someone coming off Crack etc onto Heroin and then sitting somewhere happily(?!) doing SFA at low cost to me..........rather than having the risk of them robbing me and also paying taxes to keep chasing, processing and locking folks up. Just seems a bizarre approach .....that is doomed to (continued) failure.

Being dumber than rocks is a lifestyle choice for each to make . So, as long as no one is forced to take drugs (physically) then my attitude is f#ck 'em , just don't expect me to pay for the mess.

As stated---"
No need for me to continue banging the drum, people will use them as they please but that does not make it right. The harm continues."

[Butler]

A freind of mine went to Cuba a few years ago and while strolling the malecon with some folks stepped into a little bodegas and bought some rum to drink with soda pop. On the way out my friend asked if it was alright if they drank in public as they walked and the clerk exclaimed, "Of course you can, this is a free country!"

The case mentioned by the op and championed against the authorities by Lat 38 was one where a local Lake County sheriff under the influence plowed into a slow moving (drifting in the early evening under sail in light winds) sailboat that had just finished a race killing a female passenger who was below. The Sheriff was not breathalized on the scene or charged and the prosecuter went on the offensive in a very aggresive way leveling charges against the driver of the sailboat for being under the influence and if I remember right... please correct me otherwise, manslaughter. I unfortunately lost track of the outcome so maybe somebody can fill in on that but I believe both the sheriff and the prosecutor are out though the judge failed to vindicate the sailboat skipper.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Butler

A freind of mine went to Cuba a few years ago and while strolling the malecon with some folks stepped into a little bodegas and bought some rum to drink with soda pop. On the way out my friend asked if it was alright if they drank in public as they walked and the clerk exclaimed, "Of course you can, this is a free country!"

The case mentioned by the op and championed against the authorities by Lat 38 was one where a local Lake County sheriff under the influence plowed into a slow moving (drifting in the early evening under sail in light winds) sailboat that had just finished a race killing a female passenger who was below. The Sheriff was not breathalized on the scene or charged and the prosecuter went on the offensive in a very aggresive way leveling charges against the driver of the sailboat for being under the influence and if I remember right... please correct me otherwise, manslaughter. I unfortunately lost track of the outcome so maybe somebody can fill in on that but I believe both the sheriff and the prosecutor are out though the judge failed to vindicate the sailboat skipper.

The incident occured in 2006.

The person driving, Bismark Dinius, was over the legal limit and charged because the legal definition of commanding the boat is being the 'driver'. There was consideration of citing Russel Perdock for excessive speed. Perdock was not breathalyzed and there was conflicting testimony about whether higher ups ordered that or not. There was some testimony that Perdock had been at a resort bar shortly before the accident. He did have a blood sample drawn in a timely manner and that was tested. However Perdock had access to evidence storage and the case files for a short period immediately following the accident (several days or a week?). His keys to the evidence lockup was removed after that period and he was admonished for accessing the case file and his access was restricted.

The case against the sailor went to trial about 3yr later in 2009 and Dinius was acquitted on 2 charges and the 3rd was deadlocked and the prosecuter elected not to retry that last charge.

In early 2010, due to loss of job and high legal bills, Dinius filed a federal civil suit against Lake County.

The Sheriff was recently replaced in an election.

And the deputy who was involved in the breathalyzer situation was terminated for various reasons and is now suing Lake county over his lost job, wages, benefits, pension and reputation etc etc.

It is not clear currently what the outcome of Dinius' federal suit is, whether it is still pending, settled or if it has gone to trial and been resolved.
It appears that he became an insurance agent late in 2010.

I could not find anything current on Perdock.

[s/v 'Faith']

What an excellent extract of a 37 page thread! You should get a job with Cliff notes!

Originally Posted by Adelie

The incident occured in 2006.

The person driving, Bismark Dinius, was over the legal limit and charged because the legal definition of commanding the boat is being the 'driver'. There was consideration of citing Russel Perdock for excessive speed. Perdock was not breathalyzed and there was conflicting testimony about whether higher ups ordered that or not. There was some testimony that Perdock had been at a resort bar shortly before the accident. He did have a blood sample drawn in a timely manner and that was tested. However Perdock had access to evidence storage and the case files for a short period immediately following the accident (several days or a week?). His keys to the evidence lockup was removed after that period and he was admonished for accessing the case file and his access was restricted.

The case against the sailor went to trial about 3yr later in 2009 and Dinius was acquitted on 2 charges and the 3rd was deadlocked and the prosecuter elected not to retry that last charge.

In early 2010, due to loss of job and high legal bills, Dinius filed a federal civil suit against Lake County.

The Sheriff was recently replaced in an election.

And the deputy who was involved in the breathalyzer situation was terminated for various reasons and is now suing Lake county over his lost job, wages, benefits, pension and reputation etc etc.

It is not clear currently what the outcome of Dinius' federal suit is, whether it is still pending, settled or if it has gone to trial and been resolved.
It appears that he became an insurance agent late in 2010.

I could not find anything current on Perdock.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

What an excellent extract of a 37 page thread! You should get a job with Cliff notes!

About 8 pages of Google links resulting from 6 searches.

[Bad InfluenZ]

Im an attorney in Tennessee (USA) and the last line of our BUI statute states specifically that this section (BUI) does not apply to boats moored or anchored. That being said i have seen the cops watch people party anchored out at a sandbar all day then stop them when they head home for the night. I actually love defending BUI charges. It usually goes a little like this,,,
cop - he had bloodshot eyes and was unsteady on his feet.
me - did you observe the defendant in the sun? (yes of course). Doesn't exposure to sunlight cause bloodshot eyes? what about sunscreen? wouldn't sunscreen cause bloodshot eyes??(ummm, yea i guess)
me- unsteady on his feet? weren't you on a boat when you observed him with unsteady feet? wouldn't waves on a boat make a person unsteady? Why do you wear those type of boots when patrolling? don't they help you keep your balance? The defendant didn't have those type of shoes on did he?
and so forth and so forth...

[callmecrazy]

Originally Posted by Bad InfluenZ

Im an attorney in Tennessee (USA) and the last line of our BUI statute states specifically that this section (BUI) does not apply to boats moored or anchored. That being said i have seen the cops watch people party anchored out at a sandbar all day then stop them when they head home for the night. I actually love defending BUI charges. It usually goes a little like this,,,
cop - he had bloodshot eyes and was unsteady on his feet.
me - did you observe the defendant in the sun? (yes of course). Doesn't exposure to sunlight cause bloodshot eyes? what about sunscreen? wouldn't sunscreen cause bloodshot eyes??(ummm, yea i guess)
me- unsteady on his feet? weren't you on a boat when you observed him with unsteady feet? wouldn't waves on a boat make a person unsteady? Why do you wear those type of boots when patrolling? don't they help you keep your balance? The defendant didn't have those type of shoes on did he?
and so forth and so forth...

And what is the usual outcome?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Bad InfluenZ

Im an attorney in Tennessee (USA) and the last line of our BUI statute states specifically that this section (BUI) does not apply to boats moored or anchored. That being said i have seen the cops watch people party anchored out at a sandbar all day then stop them when they head home for the night. I actually love defending BUI charges. It usually goes a little like this,,,
cop - he had bloodshot eyes and was unsteady on his feet.
me - did you observe the defendant in the sun? (yes of course). Doesn't exposure to sunlight cause bloodshot eyes? what about sunscreen? wouldn't sunscreen cause bloodshot eyes??(ummm, yea i guess)
me- unsteady on his feet? weren't you on a boat when you observed him with unsteady feet? wouldn't waves on a boat make a person unsteady? Why do you wear those type of boots when patrolling? don't they help you keep your balance? The defendant didn't have those type of shoes on did he?
and so forth and so forth...

That cancels probable cause?

[Bad InfluenZ]

Outcomes vary depending on the facts of each case. Usually the evidence is so weak the case gets tossed unless the defendant gives blood or a breath test. Its not like the cops can say someone was swerving while driving or crossing a center line. So cops are usually just left with observations that could be from alcohol or a myriad of other factors. Does not negate probable cause but usually does leave a reasonable doubt in most peoples mind...

[Butler]

Thank you Adelie for all the legwork ... I'm way too lazy, surprised I can manage to draw a breath!

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Butler

Thank you Adelie for all the legwork ... I'm way too lazy, surprised I can manage to draw a breath!

Wasn't hard.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Many of the comments suppose that the "offenders" were doing something to warrant a ticket of some sort. This is not always the case and unfortunately getting worse. We are increasingly becoming a police state. Here in New York City, a barber (not a fancy stylist nor a chain store) was issued two tickets. The first was for sex discrimination ($13 for a man's cut and $16 for a lady's cut) and the second was because his 95 year old cash register didn't issue a receipt. I talk to many who boat on the Hudson and the motor boat guys tell me they are often stopped six, seven and even eight times in one day. They are not doing anything. The various police agencies are doing this for safety. Of course, it is never for the revenue, nor is it to justify their jobs or meet a quota. Fortunately they tend to leave me alone, especially when the sails are up.

I was a tank company commander with absolute authority yet I never acted arbitrarily. I was more interested in making sure people did what they needed to do than I was interested in punishing. Too many (not all) police confuse "being able to write tickets" with "should write tickets every chance." There is a big movement away from policing towards law enforcement. Policing means just that. You are policing the neighbourhood trying to prevent trouble as well as establishing a good relationship with the community, in this case the community of boaters. It is more difficult since one must reach out to the community and establish trust but the payoff is worth it. Information often comes before there is a real problem. Law enforcement usually comes after the problem and comes in the form of tickets and arrests. The damage has been done but law enforcement uses the problem to justify their existence and ask for more money. Those who approve the money do so with conditions. One of those is often that they have to write a certain number of tickets.

Again, many mean well but they have to write tickets and make arrests since that is how they are judged. This judgement is important since it comes from those who promote and rate them.