DOES ANYONE ELSE KNOW IT'S AGAINT THE LAW TO DRIVE YOUR BOAT IF YOU HAVE BEEN DRINKIN

[SRice]

I've always been curious about people who have knee or hip problems and are sober?

We use the new "seated battery of FSTs" on the water all the time because you can't do a one-legged stand on a rocking boat. I have used the same tests for drivers on land if they have a disability which affects their ability to do the test. Seated battery includes HGN, palm pat, finger to nose, and hand coordination- described here

http://www.nasbla.org/sobrietytest

 

[BHC Vic]

We use the new "seated battery of FSTs" on the water all the time because you can't do a one-legged stand on a rocking boat. I have used the same tests for drivers on land if they have a disability which affects their ability to do the test. Seated battery includes HGN, palm pat, finger to nose, and hand coordination- described here

http://www.nasbla.org/sobrietytest

You will arrest someone for failing this test?

 

[BHC Vic]

The thing about those tests is following instructions. That's were people mess up. It's a little bit of trickery and if your drunk you won't follow directions properly

 

[SRice]

That badge doesn't make him a lawyer. I really liked him ti he said one drink doesn't impair you. Now I see him as full of hot air [emoji15]

I think I said it may impair you but that I would have to prove that it impaired you. At the so called "per se" limit of .08 the law says that there is a legal presumption you are impaired and we have a second OUI charge for you. Below that level, I must show you are impaired and to do that I would tell the story of our contact in my report. Everything from what you did to attract my attention, to how well you followed instructions on my safety inspection, to your performance on field sobriety tests, and ultimately the evidentiary blood or breath test. Somebody asks what happens if somebody refuses the field sobriety tests- well, then it hangs on whether I can establish probable cause based on slurred speech, odor of alcohol, empty bottle of Jack, poor balance during contact, inability to follow instructions etc and we have arrested people who refused to do the field sobriety tests. Here is a true horror story from my judge- officers at one of our national parks make a DUI arrest. Suspect blows >.08 and charged with both impaired to slightest degree and second >.08 statute. He's a cop from CA and gets a lawyer. In trial he is convicted of being over .08, but judge tosses the "impaired to the slightest degree" because she did not feel the officers proved that lesser charge. We were and remain dumbfounded, but it goes to show you gotta prove that impairment and if a .08 Intox reading won't fly neither will the roughly .02 you might get from a single drink. BC VIC I'm all for the Gospel you're preaching, but I'm trying to be an honest voice from the uniformed side and what you're saying is usually not gonna fly in my magistrate's court. In fact I would just about guarantee that it won't go that far because the AUSA would dismiss it and give me a stern lecture. That said, if you are a MINOR and have one drink and then drive it's gonna go a whole different direction.

 

[BHC Vic]

I think I said it may impair you but that I would have to prove that it impaired you. At the so called "per se" limit of .08 the law says that there is a legal presumption you are impaired and we have a second OUI charge for you. Below that level, I must show you are impaired and to do that I would tell the story of our contact in my report. Everything from what you did to attract my attention, to how well you followed instructions on my safety inspection, to your performance on field sobriety tests, and ultimately the evidentiary blood or breath test. Somebody asks what happens if somebody refuses the field sobriety tests- well, then it hangs on whether I can establish probable cause based on slurred speech, odor of alcohol, empty bottle of Jack, poor balance during contact, inability to follow instructions etc and we have arrested people who refused to do the field sobriety tests. Here is a true horror story from my judge- officers at one of our national parks make a DUI arrest. Suspect blows >.08 and charged with both impaired to slightest degree and second >.08 statute. He's a cop from CA and gets a lawyer. In trial he is convicted of being over .08, but judge tosses the "impaired to the slightest degree" because she did not feel the officers proved that lesser charge. We were and remain dumbfounded, but it goes to show you gotta prove that impairment and if a .08 Intox reading won't fly neither will the roughly .02 you might get from a single drink. BC VIC I'm all for the Gospel you're preaching, but I'm trying to be an honest voice from the uniformed side and what you're saying is usually not gonna fly in my magistrate's court. In fact I would just about guarantee that it won't go that far because the AUSA would dismiss it and give me a stern lecture. That said, if you are a MINOR and have one drink and then drive it's gonna go a whole different direction.

That badge worked in his favor. You weren't here when my trial was going on. I can pm you the details if you would like.

 

[SRice]

The thing about those tests is following instructions. That's were people mess up. It's a little bit of trickery and if your drunk you won't follow directions properly

The instructors who taught me indicated that this test is much more about how alcohol affects your mental faculties- does not measure balance at all, so differs from standard roadside test in important ways. Inability to follow instructions is something that we consider as a possible clue to impairment, but it could just mean you're a dum-dum bird or scared out of your wits, or something else altogether. HGN on the other hand is an involuntary physiological response, so harder to attribute that to ADHD. I won't say 100% that you will get arrested for failing those tests but it is highly likely. If however you fail them horribly and then I learn you have Parkinson's or a neurological deficit and my PBT shows .000s, well I don't think I have PC at that point for driving under the influence (of alcohol anyway).

 

[SRice]

That badge worked in his favor. You weren't here when my trial was going on. I can pm you the details if you would like.

I doubt the judge knew- and it certainly did not prevent his arrest. What worked in his favor is that she was a public defender for 20 years and became a judge last year.

 

[BHC Vic]

The instructors who taught me indicated that this test is much more about how alcohol affects your mental faculties- does not measure balance at all, so differs from standard roadside test in important ways. Inability to follow instructions is something that we consider as a possible clue to impairment, but it could just mean you're a dum-dum bird or scared out of your wits, or something else altogether. HGN on the other hand is an involuntary physiological response, so harder to attribute that to ADHD. I won't say 100% that you will get arrested for failing those tests but it is highly likely. If however you fail them horribly and then I learn you have Parkinson's or a neurological deficit and my PBT shows .000s, well I don't think I have PC at that point for driving under the influence (of alcohol anyway).

We can be friends again. I think some of your statement get twisted like mine [emoji4]

 

[SRice]

We can be friends again. I think some of your statement get twisted like mine [emoji4]

Thanks, I don't want start pissing off the guys I generally agree with! Ziggy, and RiverMobster, and Dave already give me enough grief.😊

 

[t&y]

Lol... Now we all know you are lying SRice. You mean to say that a police officer actually got arrested by another police officer:yikes

I love these threads. Someone comes in with an opinion on a matter. Somebody else who is actually very well versed and practices daily what is being discussed, offers their opinion, and is immediately dismissed. Too funny.:thumbsup

 

[BHC Vic]

Lol... Now we all know you are lying SRice. You mean to say that a police officer actually got arrested by another police officer:yikes

I love these threads. Someone comes in with an opinion on a matter. Somebody else who is actually very well versed and practices daily what is being discussed, offers their opinion, and is immediately dismissed. Too funny.:thumbsup

I feel like I have more than an opinion regarding this. Maybe you disagree but I've lived it. More than once [emoji107]

 

[t&y]

I feel like I have more than an opinion regarding this. Maybe you disagree but I've lived it. More than once [emoji107]

Congrats Vic:thumbsup I know all about your past issues with that. It's too bad you had to learn the hardway. On that note, I come across convicts all day long that still don't know squat about the legal system or how my powers of arrest actually work.


On that note, we are all entitled to our opinions on the matter which is what makes this place so entertaining.:thumbsup

 

[BHC Vic]

Congrats Vic:thumbsup I know all about your past issues with that. It's too bad you had to learn the hardway. On that note, I come across convicts all day long that still don't know squat about how the legal system or my powers of arrest actually work.


On that note, we are all entitled to our opinions on the matter which is what makes this place so entertaining.:thumbsup

Eh hard way or easy way I'm just glad I learned from my mistakes. I watch my little brother and it breaks my heart to see him keep drinking everyday even after his first dui. There's nothing I can say or do. Even if I kick his ass he's going to do what he wants. I've met convicts that don't know squat and I've met some that read the entire time they were locked up and really have educated themselves

 

[GRADS]

Just another example of commiezona trying to regulate the man.

 

[t&y]

Eh hard way or easy way I'm just glad I learned from my mistakes. I watch my little brother and it breaks my heart to see him keep drinking everyday even after his first dui. There's nothing I can say or do. Even if I kick his ass he's going to do what he wants. I've met convicts that don't know squat and I've met some that read the entire time they were locked up and really have educated themselves

Your brother was pretty funny at the dam run:thumbsup

For what its worth, what SRice offered regarding the actaul investigations and case referal to the local DA's office is spot on to what I've experienced with our local court system. Steve is relying on the letter of the law for his argument which is not how it is enforced in reality. The only time the zero tolerance alcohol would be an issue is after an accident with injury, not your standard OUI investigation.

 

[Bigbore500r]

here's what I think, people should have to pass a test to drive a boat, people should not be allow to drive a boat if they have been drinking... and also , people that drive boats capable of speeds over 75/80 mph should have to have a special endorsement and part of that endorsement should be zero impairment....

how many drinks do they allow airline pilots to have when they fly?

Airline pilot? Totally different scenario

Airline pilots are paid to transport people, the big league aviation equivalent of a bus driver or a cruise ship captain.

We're not transporting people for hire, or operating as a captain.

Last I checked I'm lucky if someone offers $20 in gas money! I'm definitely not operating for hire [emoji3]

 

[530RL]

how many drinks do they allow airline pilots to have when they fly?

The law is 8 hours bottle to throttle and .04 BAC. So if you are less than .04 and have not had a drink in 8 hours, you are legal. But I would not go fly with them.

Most Part 135 operators, like airlines or charter companies, have 12 hours in their op manuals and as such, the law for them would be 12 hours bottle to throttle.


With respect to the FST stuff.

I never boat, drive or fly if I have been drinking period. I also never ever comply with a FST, nor do I ever answer the question of whether or not I have been drinking. They have no right to demand an answer from me. I just remain polite and in doing so, I always get a lecture from the officer like he is my grandfather and that I am an idiot, but they have never arrested me and subjected me to an admissible test.

The law is clear and I think T&Y and Srice would agree. You can absolutely refuse to take an FST and/or answer any questions. Further, the officer has the right to arrest you at any time and then you are required to submit to a fluid, blood or breath test of their choice.

That is my constitutional right and it is their constitutional right to arrest me. My thinking is that if an officer can not tell the difference between a sober driver and a drunk driver absent a FST or an admission of drinking, I would rather take the bullet for my fellow boaters and tie that officer and his department up for as long as it takes as I am just doing a service to my fellow sober law abiding boaters and drivers.

If it turns out I am impaired, they have their remedies. If I turn out to be 100% sober, I have mine.

Seems fair, rational and how the system should work. :thumbsup:thumbsup

 

[Flying_Lavey]

The law is 8 hours bottle to throttle and .04 BAC. So if you are less than .04 and have not had a drink in 8 hours, you are legal. But I would not go fly with them.

Most Part 135 operators, like airlines or charter companies, have 12 hours in their op manuals and as such, the law for them would be 12 hours bottle to throttle.


With respect to the FST stuff.

I never boat, drive or fly if I have been drinking period. I also never ever comply with a FST, nor do I ever answer the question of whether or not I have been drinking. They have no right to demand an answer from me. I just remain polite and in doing so, I always get a lecture from the officer like he is my grandfather and that I am an idiot, but they have never arrested me and subjected me to an admissible test.

The law is clear and I think T&Y and Srice would agree. You can absolutely refuse to take an FST and/or answer any questions. Further, the officer has the right to arrest you at any time and then you are required to submit to a fluid, blood or breath test of their choice.

That is my constitutional right and it is their constitutional right to arrest me. My thinking is that if an officer can not tell the difference between a sober driver and a drunk driver absent a FST or an admission of drinking, I would rather take the bullet for my fellow boaters and tie that officer and his department up for as long as it takes as I am just doing a service to my fellow sober law abiding boaters and drivers.

If it turns out I am impaired, they have their remedies. If I turn out to be 100% sober, I have mine.

Seems fair, rational and how the system should work. [emoji106]thumbsup

Exactly what I think about the FST's. People need to know they are SUBJECTIVE, which means a PERSON (LEO) must interpret what he is seeing on the spot. As SRice has pointed out, the new FST's are a bit more precise but they are still a subjective test. I have no problem submitting to an OBJECTIVE test but I will not hand over information that is open to interpretation.

 

[5oclocksomewhere]

[emoji106] I've said it for quite a while. I will quickly bow out of this thread before I'm called a born again on a soap box [emoji4] church at 7am tomorrow if anyone cares to join me

Fucking quitter!!!

 

[SRice]

The law is 8 hours bottle to throttle and .04 BAC. So if you are less than .04 and have not had a drink in 8 hours, you are legal. But I would not go fly with them.

Most Part 135 operators, like airlines or charter companies, have 12 hours in their op manuals and as such, the law for them would be 12 hours bottle to throttle.


With respect to the FST stuff.

I never boat, drive or fly if I have been drinking period. I also never ever comply with a FST, nor do I ever answer the question of whether or not I have been drinking. They have no right to demand an answer from me. I just remain polite and in doing so, I always get a lecture from the officer like he is my grandfather and that I am an idiot, but they have never arrested me and subjected me to an admissible test.

The law is clear and I think T&Y and Srice would agree. You can absolutely refuse to take an FST and/or answer any questions. Further, the officer has the right to arrest you at any time and then you are required to submit to a fluid, blood or breath test of their choice.

That is my constitutional right and it is their constitutional right to arrest me. My thinking is that if an officer can not tell the difference between a sober driver and a drunk driver absent a FST or an admission of drinking, I would rather take the bullet for my fellow boaters and tie that officer and his department up for as long as it takes as I am just doing a service to my fellow sober law abiding boaters and drivers.

If it turns out I am impaired, they have their remedies. If I turn out to be 100% sober, I have mine.

Seems fair, rational and how the system should work. :thumbsup:thumbsup

I think it's unfortunate that you hold OUI enforcement in such low regard that you would prefer to gum up the works
than to cooperate with a five-minute stop so we can go back to looking for the guy that's gonna kill somebody's wife or child. From your perspective, other than checkpoints, if you've been stopped you have probably already committed a violation of some sort. What might have been handld with a warning is probably now going to be handled with a citation. I'd suggest that 'be innocent and be cooperative'is the better strategy.

 

[rivrrts429]

I think it's unfortunate that you hold OUI enforcement in such low regard that you would prefer to gum up the works
than to cooperate with a five-minute stop so we can go back to looking for the guy that's gonna kill somebody's wife or child. From your perspective, other than checkpoints, if you've been stopped you have probably already committed a violation of some sort. What might have been handld with a warning is probably now going to be handled with a citation. I'd suggest that 'be innocent and be cooperative'is the better strategy.

You missed the part where he said he never drinks while operating a boat. It would be your guys' time gumming up the works at that point.

I've been hemmed up on the water before because I told the officer I hadn't been drinking but yet they continue to push the drinking narrative. I'd deem my honest answer as cooperating but the second I reply you guys have your nose buried in my breath. The whole asking 50 of the same questions in differing ways gets old so I just shut my mouth. It sets you boys off in a fit. Too damn stubborn to understand my answer the first time.

The way I see it, you have a job and so do I. To assume your job of getting me to willfully give up my rights is somehow almighty to me protecting them is a bit narcissistic. The word "cooperating" most often means you phrasing a series of questions resulting in me openly giving you probable cause.

The aggressiveness over the years is what has led it to this point. Everybody is drunk until they "cooperate" proving otherwise. The idea that hiding in the bushes and cameras is improving safety has led to this. You want to improve safety? Hang out at site 6 when launching and retrieving. You'll be busier than a long-tailed cat in a rocking chair factory.

 

[530RL]

I think it's unfortunate that you hold OUI enforcement in such low regard that you would prefer to gum up the works
than to cooperate with a five-minute stop so we can go back to looking for the guy that's gonna kill somebody's wife or child. From your perspective, other than checkpoints, if you've been stopped you have probably already committed a violation of some sort. What might have been handld with a warning is probably now going to be handled with a citation. I'd suggest that 'be innocent and be cooperative'is the better strategy.

I respectfully disagree with the portion of your post I have highlighted.

I hold the law and the Constitution in high regard as you do and am always completely cooperative and polite consistent with the law and the Constitution. I have never been stopped for a violation nor received a citation for a violation. Like you and most all boaters, we are all the good guys. However, I have only been repeatedly stopped for a "safety" checks in the last 7 years when never being stopped before.

I hear what you are saying and I understand. But with all due respect, repeated "safety" stops of persons who have committed no violation, when unsafe operation could be the target of enforcement seems to me to be the policy that is "gumming" up the works. I fully agree that law enforcement should focus their policies on "looking for the guy that's gonna kill somebody's wife or child" as opposed to random "safety" stops of good safe boaters.

With respect to "be innocent and be cooperative" is the better strategy I look to our Founding Fathers and particularly Benjamin Franklin for guidance who said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". That quote should, in my opinion, be held in high regard by both citizens and law enforcement.

If I violate the law, I deserve to be stopped, given an citation and be subject to the consequences. We should all be on the same side of responsible boating. However, and I accept we disagree, no one deserves to be subjugated to repeated "safety" stops.

 

[BHC Vic]

I respectfully disagree with the portion of your post I have highlighted.

I hold the law and the Constitution in high regard as you do and am always completely cooperative and polite consistent with the law and the Constitution. I have never been stopped for a violation nor received a citation for a violation. Like you and most all boaters, we are all the good guys. However, I have only been repeatedly stopped for a "safety" checks in the last 7 years when never being stopped before.

I hear what you are saying and I understand. But with all due respect, repeated "safety" stops of persons who have committed no violation, when unsafe operation could be the target of enforcement seems to me to be the policy that is "gumming" up the works. I fully agree that law enforcement should focus their policies on "looking for the guy that's gonna kill somebody's wife or child" as opposed to random "safety" stops of good safe boaters.

With respect to "be innocent and be cooperative" is the better strategy I look to our Founding Fathers and particularly Benjamin Franklin for guidance who said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". That quote should, in my opinion, be held in high regard by both citizens and law enforcement.

If I violate the law, I deserve to be stopped, given an citation and be subject to the consequences. We should all be on the same side of responsible boating. However, and I accept we disagree, no one deserves to be subjugated to repeated "safety" stops.

What if they just call them dui check points like we do on the streets? Would that change anything? Your post is pretty logical [emoji4]

 

[530RL]

What if they just call them dui check points like we do on the streets? Would that change anything? Your post is pretty logical [emoji4]

Same deal. I don't drink and drive. Not even an ounce.

That is why I used the word "subjugated".

 

[JB in so cal]

It's been said about, oh maybe a lot, that if the goal is to get drunk boaters off the water and not revenue generation then post officers at every ramp and check everybody coming off the water.

I dunno, but it seems this kind of thread gets going about twice a year. Same arguments. Same positions.

Carry on.

 

[BHC Vic]

Same deal. I don't drink and drive. Not even an ounce.

That is why I used the word "subjugated".

I don't drink at all. I've never minded the safety check points but I get why it would be irradiating since I've never done anything wrong. Luckily they have always been pretty quick. I would be beyond pissed if my boat got messed up

 

[Headless hula]

I don't drink at all. I've never minded the safety check points but I get why it would be irradiating since I've never done anything wrong. Luckily they have always been pretty quick. I would be beyond pissed if my boat got messed up

I wonder if you could send them a repair bill, for failing to control their vessel?

 

[Headless hula]

I would be beyond pissed if officer friendly pulled me over and messed up my ride. I'd be going to jail for an entirely different reason!

 

[530RL]

I wonder if you could send them a repair bill, for failing to control their vessel?

Your legal fees to process that claim would far exceed the cost of repair.

 

[HBCraig]

Awesome thread. Well done. Invite all the governing agencies to read.

Nice job. :thumbsup :rolleyes

 

[was thatguy]

Congrats Vic:thumbsup I know all about your past issues with that. It's too bad you had to learn the hardway. On that note, I come across convicts all day long that still don't know squat about the legal system or how my powers of arrest actually work.


On that note, we are all entitled to our opinions on the matter which is what makes this place so entertaining.:thumbsup

One thing I've learned is that My opinion doesn't mean much when the boots hit my neck!:thumbsup:yikes

Bottom line, you refuse a FST you are going for a ride in the backseat. "Impaired" is a subjective term decided by the officer to the point of evidence obtained by breath or blood.

I'm quite sure that TY and other LEO just LOVE running across Judge Judy scholars in their day to day contacts!

 

[DogNamedChevy]

Awesome thread. Well done. Invite all the governing agencies to read.

Nice job. :thumbsup :rolleyes

Yup! Wonder if the governing agencies are interested in the "ghost driving" or speeding on the freeway videos that the OP has posted? But fork the guy who has had a beer and boats! [emoji12]

 

[2FORCEFULL]

Yup! Wonder if the governing agencies are interested in the "ghost driving" or speeding on the freeway videos that the OP has posted? But fork the guy who has had a beer and boats! [emoji12]

that guy must have been drunk...was it at havasu???

 

[DogNamedChevy]

that guy must have been drunk...was it at havasu???

Mead [emoji23] That lake is dangerous...hahahaha 27 Hallett..baddest Mofo in the galaxy

 

[was thatguy]

Isn't it truly sad that America has come to this.

Imagine the checkpoints after you get heroin and meth legalized!!:thumbsup:yikes

I don't think arguing with cops has ever been a good idea?
That part is nothing new.

And despite your labeling me elsewhere as a supporter of intrusions, I have a real problem with DUI checkpoint type stops. But I don't drive drunk, my cars are all registered and insured, I don't have drugs in them, my license is current, etc. It doesn't fuck up my day.
So even though Drunk driving is the "perfect storm" concerning revenue generation under the all encompassing guise of public safety, going against the social outcry over dui deaths by lobbying against these type stops is sure to get you some real special attention. Basically you will be accused of wanting to kill babies in fiery crashes...

Personally, I've chosen to challenge them many times...it really just depended on if I had anything important going on that day.
I think you may remember my post a long time ago when I got pulled over by CHP on 395 south of Susanville. I had him on my detector miles away, was going the speed limit, he flipped a u turn and stopped me. Said someone called me in for unsafe passing. (Total jack ass call in, I never make illegal or unsafe passes.)
Anyway I told him it was bullshit, called my attorney while the cop was on his cell talking to the accuser. I told him to take me in and get ready because this was a total bs stop. He cuffed me and put me in the seat. After running me and seeing that I was really just Joe citizen with multiple vehicles and no warrants and no points, he uncuffed me and away I went.

You know, I've been arrested before, been the subject of investigations, I even used to follow investigators around on days when I just really had nothing better to do. They hate that!
I know when they have me fair and square, and I know when they are feeding me bullshit and are fishing. So, if there is time in ones day to stand up, then do it.
If you are busy, say yes sir no sir and go along your way...they'll get the bad guy later on.

 

[SRice]

I respectfully disagree with the portion of your post I have highlighted.

I hold the law and the Constitution in high regard as you do and am always completely cooperative and polite consistent with the law and the Constitution. I have never been stopped for a violation nor received a citation for a violation. Like you and most all boaters, we are all the good guys. However, I have only been repeatedly stopped for a "safety" checks in the last 7 years when never being stopped before.

I hear what you are saying and I understand. But with all due respect, repeated "safety" stops of persons who have committed no violation, when unsafe operation could be the target of enforcement seems to me to be the policy that is "gumming" up the works. I fully agree that law enforcement should focus their policies on "looking for the guy that's gonna kill somebody's wife or child" as opposed to random "safety" stops of good safe boaters.

With respect to "be innocent and be cooperative" is the better strategy I look to our Founding Fathers and particularly Benjamin Franklin for guidance who said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". That quote should, in my opinion, be held in high regard by both citizens and law enforcement.

If I violate the law, I deserve to be stopped, given an citation and be subject to the consequences. We should all be on the same side of responsible boating. However, and I accept we disagree, no one deserves to be subjugated to repeated "safety" stops.

Fair enough. For the record, you probably are not being stopped by USFWS officers unless they have at least reasonable suspicion of a violation (and I'm using the term "reasonable suspicion" as defined by law). My agency does not do random safety checks. The Coast Guard regs allow such safety checks and when I worked for NPS in the Everglades we had regulations which fully assimilated the Coast Guard regs. USFWS has never written that into their own regulations (although i believe it may be in the works at the national level) and we have therefore limited our stops to individuals who broke some law, whether big or small. We do assist AZGFD with OUI checkpoints but those are a pretty unique situation with a lot of legal constraints which must be followed. The other exception would be individuals engaged in fishing or hunting- we do routinely inspect those folks under other authorities. In the Everglades where I'd only see 15 boats I want to talk to every one of those people- so I appreciated the regulations which gave me that authority. Here, I'm looking for other things and don't need to waste my time (or yours) on boaters who appear to be doing everything right.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

Fair enough. For the record, you probably are not being stopped by USFWS officers unless they have at least reasonable suspicion of a violation (and I'm using the term "reasonable suspicion" as defined by law). My agency does not do random safety checks. The Coast Guard regs allow such safety checks and when I worked for NPS in the Everglades we had regulations which fully assimilated the Coast Guard regs. USFWS has never written that into their own regulations (although i believe it may be in the works at the national level) and we have therefore limited our stops to individuals who broke some law, whether big or small. We do assist AZGFD with OUI checkpoints but those are a pretty unique situation with a lot of legal constraints which must be followed. The other exception would be individuals engaged in fishing or hunting- we do routinely inspect those folks under other authorities. In the Everglades where I'd only see 15 boats I want to talk to every one of those people- so I appreciated the regulations which gave me that authority. Here, I'm looking for other things and don't need to waste my time (or yours) on boaters who appear to be doing everything right.

so how "impared are you allowed to be legally?

and are the laws in this book not really laws...

http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/documents/2008BoatingAtaGlance_AZ.pdf

 

[Heylam]

One thing is very clear here....paranoia is way deeper then the mighty Colorado River.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

the reason I started this thread was to be helpful... I know a lot of people that drink and drive their boats,... I've always heard that you can drink a beer or cocktail while driving,... never read that... but that's what I was told..

so when I read the law... though maybe every one should know what the real law is...

but just for knowledge.... can you drink a beer while driving your boat? and is it legal?

 

[2FORCEFULL]

One thing is very clear here....paranoia is way deeper then the mighty Colorado River.

scared of what?

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

One thing is very clear here....paranoia is way deeper then the mighty Colorado River.

And stupidity. Follow the golden rule and you can never get in any real trouble:

Only break one law at a time.

 

[SRice]

so how "impared are you allowed to be legally?

and are the laws in this book not really laws...

http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/documents/2008BoatingAtaGlance_AZ.pdf

You are not allowed to be impaired at all if you are operating. But impaired does not mean you have alcohol in your body. It means you have alcohol in your body AND that alcohol is affecting your judgement, reflexes, balance, mental ability, etc. We need some sort of measurement of whether those things are in fact affected and that is what the FSTs are intended to measure. Personally, I'd LOVE to skip the whole testing and interview process and just have everybody blow into the portable breath tester (and like the Irish and Australians I think .05 should be the magic number). Fast, easy, and reliable. I tend to have a pretty high level of confidence in technology and think we should give that PBT result a little more credit, but courts and defense attorneys keep insisting on the rest.

 

[rivrrts429]

One thing is very clear here....paranoia is way deeper then the mighty Colorado River.

the reason I started this thread was to be helpful... I know a lot of people that drink and drive their boats,... I've always heard that you can drink a beer or cocktail while driving,... never read that... but that's what I was told..

so when I read the law... though maybe every one should know what the real law is...

but just for knowledge.... can you drink a beer while driving your boat? and is it legal?

scared of what?

You talking to yourself again, 2FF lol

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

You are not allowed to be impaired at all if you are operating. But impaired does not mean you have alcohol in your body. It means you have alcohol in your body AND that alcohol is affecting your judgement, reflexes, balance, mental ability, etc. We need some sort of measurement of whether those things are in fact affected and that is what the FSTs are intended to measure. Personally, I'd LOVE to skip the whole testing and interview process and just have everybody blow into the portable breath tester (and like the Irish and Australians I think .05 should be the magic number). Fast, easy, and reliable. I tend to have a pretty high level of confidence in technology and think we should give that PBT result a little more credit, but courts and defense attorneys keep insisting on the rest.

Impairment is not just due to alcohol, correct? If I get pulled over and act high as a kite and blow a 0.0 you'll be more than happy to put me in bracelets right?

But that's fine if you want to make this more transactional. If I blow under .08 tell me to have a nice day, turn around, walk away, and stop wasting both of our time.

How many people are getting in accidents and injuring people below .08 BAC? Courts and attorneys insist on more than the PBT because it is not reliable enough by itself.

Have you seen The Terminator? That is what happens when too much trust is put in technology .

 

[Wheeler]

but just for knowledge.... can you drink a beer while driving your boat? and is it legal?

Dave say's yes and that's good enough for me! :tbi

 

[530RL]

Fair enough. For the record, you probably are not being stopped by USFWS officers unless they have at least reasonable suspicion of a violation (and I'm using the term "reasonable suspicion" as defined by law). My agency does not do random safety checks. The Coast Guard regs allow such safety checks and when I worked for NPS in the Everglades we had regulations which fully assimilated the Coast Guard regs. USFWS has never written that into their own regulations (although i believe it may be in the works at the national level) and we have therefore limited our stops to individuals who broke some law, whether big or small. We do assist AZGFD with OUI checkpoints but those are a pretty unique situation with a lot of legal constraints which must be followed. The other exception would be individuals engaged in fishing or hunting- we do routinely inspect those folks under other authorities. In the Everglades where I'd only see 15 boats I want to talk to every one of those people- so I appreciated the regulations which gave me that authority. Here, I'm looking for other things and don't need to waste my time (or yours) on boaters who appear to be doing everything right.

Well I hope you take this in a positive light.

Most everyone on RDP is for getting impaired and idiot boaters off the water. But when you have meetings in your organization about this topic, "how" the agency goes about getting impaired people off the water is as important as getting impaired people off the water.

We all want to be on the same team. Hopefully you will take this thread in the positive manner it is intended and influence policy appropriately. :thumbsup

 

[Ballyhoo]

The law is 8 hours bottle to throttle and .04 BAC. So if you are less than .04 and have not had a drink in 8 hours, you are legal. But I would not go fly with them.

Most Part 135 operators, like airlines or charter companies, have 12 hours in their op manuals and as such, the law for them would be 12 hours bottle to throttle.


With respect to the FST stuff.

I never boat, drive or fly if I have been drinking period. I also never ever comply with a FST, nor do I ever answer the question of whether or not I have been drinking. They have no right to demand an answer from me. I just remain polite and in doing so, I always get a lecture from the officer like he is my grandfather and that I am an idiot, but they have never arrested me and subjected me to an admissible test.

The law is clear and I think T&Y and Srice would agree. You can absolutely refuse to take an FST and/or answer any questions. Further, the officer has the right to arrest you at any time and then you are required to submit to a fluid, blood or breath test of their choice.

That is my constitutional right and it is their constitutional right to arrest me. My thinking is that if an officer can not tell the difference between a sober driver and a drunk driver absent a FST or an admission of drinking, I would rather take the bullet for my fellow boaters and tie that officer and his department up for as long as it takes as I am just doing a service to my fellow sober law abiding boaters and drivers.

If it turns out I am impaired, they have their remedies. If I turn out to be 100% sober, I have mine.

Seems fair, rational and how the system should work. :thumbsup:thumbsup

You are correct- you dont have to answer any questions and you dont have to take any FSTs. This does happen quite often and I absolutely dont have any issues with someone who takes this route sober or not. I still have a job to do and when in these situations it wont prevent me from doing that job. That odor of an alcoholic beverage is as easy to detect as a fart in a small closet. A "drunk driver" is easy to detect and I can easily get enough probable cause to make an arrest. The impaired driver, the guy that is .08 or really close to that AND regularly drinks or someone who is on some sort of drugs, especially something prescribed, is a little more challenging, especially if they wont talk to you or perform FSTs. So, you do have a constitutional protected right to not talk to me. Cops have the legal authority from their state ( for local and state cops) to arrest you if the elements of the crime are present and there is probable cause to believe that you are or have committed said crime.

Many of these threads have been good as we all can learn and maybe better understand why cops do things and what the actual laws are instead of relying on urban legend. It is curious to me at times why some folks seem or talk like they have had many encounters with law enforcement. The overwhelming majority of our population has zero encounters with cops. Maybe its just me but I try to determine what I need to do to stay off the radar. I dont operate on the radar and then try to figure out how to get out of that situation unscathed.

 

[Ballyhoo]

You missed the part where he said he never drinks while operating a boat. It would be your guys' time gumming up the works at that point.

I've been hemmed up on the water before because I told the officer I hadn't been drinking but yet they continue to push the drinking narrative. I'd deem my honest answer as cooperating but the second I reply you guys have your nose buried in my breath. The whole asking 50 of the same questions in differing ways gets old so I just shut my mouth. It sets you boys off in a fit. Too damn stubborn to understand my answer the first time.

The way I see it, you have a job and so do I. To assume your job of getting me to willfully give up my rights is somehow almighty to me protecting them is a bit narcissistic. The word "cooperating" most often means you phrasing a series of questions resulting in me openly giving you probable cause.

The aggressiveness over the years is what has led it to this point. Everybody is drunk until they "cooperate" proving otherwise. The idea that hiding in the bushes and cameras is improving safety has led to this. You want to improve safety? Hang out at site 6 when launching and retrieving. You'll be busier than a long-tailed cat in a rocking chair factory.

I like this post for many reasons. While I haven't been stopped on the water and subjected to questioning that could be aggressive, I know that If it was like described, I would not be very pleased. Each cop needs to figure out what kind of cop they want to be. That usually takes a little time to figure out but most cops end up in the right zone. They look at each situation on its individual merits, they become good listeners (when possible), they learn to operate under the spirit of the law when they can and they treat folks with respect. Finding OUIs on the lake during random stops, in my opinion, gets random results, which in turn leads to pissed off boaters. If you follow the 90% / 10% method of locating bad guys- 90% of the fish live in 10% of the ocean- where are you going to fish? I would be at or near anyone of the ramps late in the day. They are the 10%.

 

[shintoooo]

I'm still going to go boating and have a few beers.[emoji3] That is all.

 

[Flying_Lavey]

the reason I started this thread was to be helpful... I know a lot of people that drink and drive their boats,... I've always heard that you can drink a beer or cocktail while driving,... never read that... but that's what I was told..

so when I read the law... though maybe every one should know what the real law is...

but just for knowledge.... can you drink a beer while driving your boat? and is it legal?

I'm fairly certain Boatcop did confirm that there is no law against drinking and driving in a boat. I have personally asked a Monterey County Sheriff out here on Naci and he did confirm there is no low against it here.