Whatch out in KEY WEST they will get you!

[Dave the Canuck]

Originally Posted by jzk

You wouldn't want a Yanmar mechanic giving you mechanical advice regarding your Yanmar, would you?

Of course not, I'd rather have an someone tell me that diesels are polluting, world-ending machines and will be the death of us all so we'd best legislate against them. (sigh)

[theonecalledtom]

I wish they'd hand out more BUIs over here - but don't really care about dem rowers...

[easterly]

round my neck of the water I think the BUI is higher than the DUI by .3, .11 vs .08

[cooper]

On a boat, I could be sitting in a secure anchorage , or I would assume, a live aboard at a marina, have a few sherberts and get a visit from the Anti-Fun Squad.

Cat man...settle down...no they can not.

Unless the boat is moving, th rules dont apply. I would be the first to jump up and down. (And DO something about it) Obviously it defeats the purpose if being stationary incurs the same wroth. It dosnt. Being safely on anchor is a boat at rest. There is NO body in charge. Whilst I understand and share your thoughts re over policing, it is important that we dont stretch the situation.

[Southern Star]

Cooper, that was very well put. And JZK, you should be very careful in giving legal advice. Most jurisdictions have offences for failing to provide a breath sample which carry the same penalty as a DUI conviction. The best advice is 'don't take the risk' and, if you are stupid enough to do it, then call a lawyer in the jurisdiction in which you are apprehended before giving samples of your breath at the police detachment (the roadside samples taken prior to the exercize of your right to counsel are generally ony admissible as grounds for arrrest, not evidence on any subsequent trial). Remember, however, laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the best defence in this case is to stay off of (or out of) the court. Don't put the ball into play and you can't lose.

Brad

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Cooper, that was very well put. And JZK, you should be very careful in giving legal advice. Most jurisdictions have offences for failing to provide a breath sample which carry the same penalty as a DUI conviction. The best advice is 'don't take the risk' and, if you are stupid enough to do it, then call a lawyer in the jurisdiction in which you are apprehended before giving samples of your breath at the police detachment (the roadside samples taken prior to the exercize of your right to counsel are generally ony admissible as grounds for arrrest, not evidence on any subsequent trial). Remember, however, laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the best defence in this case is to stay off of (or out of) the court. Don't put the ball into play and you can't lose.

Brad

I stated it that there is a fine of up to $500 for refusing the test. In all of my life I have never heard an attorney give any other advice other than to refuse the test regardless of the consequences. The other consequences are worse.

Yes, the best advice is don't drink. Second to that, if you are drinking, don't operate a vehicle of any kind. However, if you follow that advice, you never need to decide whether to take the test.

[Southern Star]

Again, jzk, one has to careful in assuming that the penalties/laws are the same in all jurisdictions. In Canada, the penalties for refusing a test are IDENTICAL to failing one. I understand that is also the case in the UK, some Caribbean Islands and some US States.

In addition, statutes (and the case law interpreting them) change rapidly. It is dangerous to assume that the advice given to one person in one area on one set of facts will apply generally. This site is dedicated to cruisers, many of whom will eventually sail in different jurisdictions. If you find yourself at a police station being requested (or demanded) to take a breath test, GET LEGAL ADVICE! Don't assume anything.

The reality is that in many jursidictions, it is easier to fight a breathalyzer reading (or its admissibility) than it is to defend a refusal to even provide a sample. It is better to know your rights and obligations than to think you know them.



Brad

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

The reality is that in many jursidictions, it is easier to fight a breathalyzer reading (or its admissibility) than it is to defend a refusal to even provide a sample. It is better to know your rights and obligations than to think you know them.Brad

Really? That is a new one to me. So now you are giving legal advice as to how easy it is to fight a breath test. Interesting.

If I got stopped for BUI, I would say that I am very nervous, and I don't want to take any tests, or do anything until I talk to my lawyer. Then I wouldn't take any tests, or do anything. Saying that I want to talk to a lawyer is for the jury. It makes me seem reasonable and gives me an explanation for why I wouldn't take the test.

And, for the record we are talking about Key West, which is in Florida which imposes up to a $500 fine for your first refusal to take the test.

[hellosailor]

There are plenty of states in the US where you'll get a DUI or similar ticket if both you and the car keys are found in the car at the same time, and you're drunk. That's not totally unfair, since a sober driver should know the drunk driving laws and if you can't remember to stash the keys--you might also forget not to drive with them.

My first thought was "what, BUI for a ROWER??" but it didn't take long to figure out that's logical too. Anybody here old enough to remember Natalie Wood? Got drunk, fell off a docked yacht, drowned. She's not the only celeb that went that way. People get drunk, go out on the water, and yes even rowing they overturn and drown. So the water police just don't want drunks mixed with boats. Even rowboats. Maybe a little extreme and protectionist, but I'd bet they've done that because one too many people made a fuss after their friends or family got stupid, overturned a boat, and died.

Now, if we could get Western cultures to accept that death is normal and acceptable and protectionism is not always called for...Small task.

[Southern Star]

jzk I am not giving legal advice, but rather pointing out the dangers of generic legal opinions. Further, while this started as a thread concerning a case from the Florida Keys, it has garnered responses from around the world and, as I pointed out, on a 'cruiser's forum' one can assume that many will eventually sail in different jurisdictions.

We know what you would choose to do (and you may be absolutely correct that refusal is the only sound decision regardless of the facts if you are in the Florida Keys - although I have my doubts). Others may think it prudent to get legal advice from a criminal lawyer in the jurisdiction in which they find themselves before making such an important decision as to whether they should comply with a demand to provide a breath sample.

Brad

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

jzk I am not giving legal advice, but rather pointing out the dangers of generic legal opinions. Further, while this started as a thread concerning a case from the Florida Keys, it has garnered responses from around the world and, as I pointed out, on a 'cruiser's forum' one can assume that many will eventually sail in different jurisdictions.

We know what you would choose to do (and you may be absolutely correct that refusal is the only sound decision regardless of the facts if you are in the Florida Keys - although I have my doubts). Others may think it prudent to get legal advice from a criminal lawyer in the jurisdiction in which they find themselves before making such an important decision as to whether they should comply with a demand to provide a breath sample.

Brad

This is legal advice: "The reality is that in many jursidictions, it is easier to fight a breathalyzer reading (or its admissibility) than it is to defend a refusal to even provide a sample. It is better to know your rights and obligations than to think you know them."

And, I agree with you that you should consult with an attorney BEFORE taking any tests.

[bstreep]

As noted, laws are different in each state/nation. Here in TX, if believe you might fail any test, is to refuse all tests. They can not arrest you here without cause. Cause is NOT: refusing to take a field sobriety test (most fail this completely sober) or a portable breath test. "Arrest me or let me continue down the road" is the recommendation from attorneys.

Other states are very different - and as noted - in Canada, one is assumed to be guilty and must prove one's innocense.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by bstreep

As noted, laws are different in each state/nation. Here in TX, if believe you might fail any test, is to refuse all tests. They can not arrest you here without cause. Cause is NOT: refusing to take a field sobriety test (most fail this completely sober) or a portable breath test. "Arrest me or let me continue down the road" is the recommendation from attorneys.

Other states are very different - and as noted - in Canada, one is assumed to be guilty and must prove one's innocense.

Has anyone ever seen a test on completely sober persons taking one of these tests? I know I would fail some. I know some people who would fail most or all!

Then I looked and found this.

http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawy...ty_test_e.html

And then I thought how funny it would be to try the test in a dink.....on the water...... with a couple of waves.

I wish I could just have a beer right now. It has been a while.

[Southern Star]

I am glad that we agree that someone should consult an attorney (although I would add, before taking or refusing) any tests. I did not give a 'legal opinion 'as to what anyone should, or should not do in any given fact situation; rather, I urged people to get fact and jursidiction specific legal advice before making a decision. In that connection, I pointed out that the legal consequences of failing to provide a sample are not the same everywhere (I gather you see that as a 'legal opinion' that is open to debate). It is you who have attempted to give generic legal advice about what one should do in all cases in the Florida Keys if you have been demanded to provide a sample of your breath. I did and continue to urge caution to others on this forum in accepting that advice.

And as to your 'free legal advice' offending some 'lawyer's union', so far as I am aware even in Florida rules governing the practise of law are not made by unions.

Brad

[Southern Star]

Actually Bill, in Canada we too have the 'presumption of innocence' - something both the US and Canada carried over from the Great tradition of the British common law dating back as far as the Magna Carta.

Even in the US there can be penalites for refusing to provide a sample of your breath - as has been pointed out. In Canada we consider driving a motor vehicle on Highways and the operation of a vessel on navigable waterways to be a privilege and not a right. Hence, it is possible to be not only fined for failure to provide a sample (as is apparently the case in Florida), but also to have your driver's license (or in Canada now, boating license) suspended as well. One previous post suggested the same to be the case (at least as regards driving privileges) in his home state.

My only point is that care should be taken before ASSUMING that one course of action (the refusal to provide a sample of your breath) is the ONLY course of action to take in all jurisdictions and in all fact situations. In any case, you (and others) can choose to do what you want to do if the sitation arises.

Brad


Brad