DUI while at Anchor

It is kind of a ridiculous argument. We live in a very litigious society. If asked, no lawyer or LEO is going to risk liability. Of course he's going to tell you he'd arrest you. The repercussions are "Well I was told by <Joe Bagodonutz> that it was LEGAL.


It's like asking if it's still illegal to drive your farm truck drunk on your private property. Of course he's going to tell you it's DUI. We might as well debate the number of teeth in a horses mouth.

Wifey B: Omg the freaking conspiracy theories. We're not talking about anyone having been ticketed. We're talking about the response when LEO are asked the question, the legal definition. And as to mooring theory, mooring is considered like a dock. Moored you are not by definition "operating" a boat. Anchored you are. Anchored you are always considered to be in transit still. Docked and moored you're attached to a permanent (ok, semi permanent, sometimes more so that others) object.

If you're quietly anchored in a shallow cove removed from the seas you're not going to likely get a DUI. If you're anchored in Biscayne Bay on July 4, you may not but you probably should get one.

I get pretty fed up with the state of Florida being described as out to get you as boaters. It's the highest, overall most friendly, boating state there is. There are marinas, there are moorings and there are plenty of anchorages. We're surrounded by anchorages when home.

Lake Havasu rafting and partying. Same thing. They tolerate more crap than any place I know, but if you don't have one person sober to drive your boat, you will be ticketed. Now they don't come wildly looking. They come when they see obvious drunken behavior. They could haul half the people there off for public intoxication, but they don't. They do take action when there's a boat of 8 people and all of them are drunk, with no one to drive it.

Omg I feel like the granny looking down on the younger generation with this next comment too but it's actually the reverse. What is it with so many of the boaters that you feel every night or lots of nights you must get drunk? I see so many boat users who drink every night and do get intoxicated several times most weeks. That's a problem. You do realize now you're arguing over your right to get drunk? What? I don't know whether to laugh or scream. Really now, stay home if you feel you must get drunk.

And as to marinas, I have seen a couple of public intox arrests there. People making as...es of themselves disturbing others and putting themselves at danger of falling in. Boats really aren't good places to be drunk. Not like falling down in your front yard and laying there till morn. Fall down in your yard while anchored and you're old news fast.

So yeah I'm wound up over this. First over the conspiracy theory. Second over the picture trying to be presented that "Florida" hates boaters or anchorers. Third over the apparent fight for the right to get drunk on your boat.

None of this aimed at the OP as it was just a simple post about the laws. Ask a question, get an answer and the OP did. But then all the rest of this....whoa...whoa...whoa. And I'll add one thing to my rant. I don't like you out running your boat or car around me the next morning with a hangover either. You're not at that point legally intoxicated but you're also a heck of a long ways from 100% of your abilities to function.

Peter B said:

Here on the other side of the world, we have a 0.05 legal level of blood alcohol - under that, either in a vehicle or boat, and you're good to go. At anchor for the night, one would never be breath tested anyway. Only learner and provisional licence drivers have a zero blood alcohol status for driving. I can't believe over there just having had a beer would put you in jeopardy..? Surely you get tested first..?

Click to expand...

Your alcohol restrictions are actually lower than ours. The lowest here is generally 0.08. A beer doesn't put one in jeopardy. But anyone bothered by this isn't talking about having "a beer" or even the infamous "two beers" that every DUI driver in history has told the officer. We're really talking about those who imbibe enough nightly to be legally intoxicated. As to helmet laws, I agree with you, although the states without helmet laws do have more available organ donors.

Peter B said:

Not trying to throw this to OTDE material, but seriously, when I read that thread I was confused. Is there not a legal definition of being DUI, (which I worked out meant drunk in charge), over there..?

Click to expand...

That is one of the dumb things about that thread. There is indeed a BAC level of .08 in most, if not all, of the US states. So an officer can't just arrest someone for being BUI unless the BAC is at or above .08. Just because an officer saw a person drinking a beer on the fly bridge of an anchored boat is not enough probable cause, much less reasonable suspicion, that the person was drunk.

The wackiness of that CF thread was that somehow the officer would actually see someone with a drink and immediately arrest for BUI. Quite a bit has to happen to get to any arrest, much less an arrest for BUI. Honestly, I have to come up with some really unlikely scenarios for a BUI arrest of someone on an anchored boat.

Later,
Dan

GFC said:

When I first read the title to this thread I figured it had happened on Portland where Alaska SD is currently residing. I figured Tom threw this up there as part of the "Keep Portland Weird" theme.


That thread on Cruiser Forum was so full of BS it smelled like a barnyard.


The whole thing boils down to this--yes, maybe you could get a citation or arrest for BUI under the circumstances described but most LE officers (especially water cops I've known) would never even consider doing that because you are there for the night and they have better things to do.

Click to expand...

GFC.... There is no way I would live in Portland! It is even too weird for me. But I am down river and catch their crap. It is said if we have a strong west wind, Portland is sucking the oxygen out of the AIR!

BUI is an interesting subject. I have seen a lot of boats operated dangerously because of the drinking. I think it is those the LEOs should focus on, not the boats at anchor (I think you could win this one in court).

Hey Wifey B! Good post!

dannc said:

The wackiness of that CF thread was that somehow the officer would actually see someone with a drink and immediately arrest for BUI.

Click to expand...

That's part of "the wackiness." The other part is that the whole thing started because someone decided to ask a cop what was legal and what wasn't. Now, no offense to cops, but their job is not to know the nuances of every law ever written. They are not legal experts. Asking a cop what is legal and what isn't is just dumb. It's about as smart as asking the propane technician, who just fixed your oven, for a good cake recipe and imagining that he should know about such things!

SCOTTEDAVIS said:

I don't know what your talking about, when the officer was on my boat it was hard aground and was therefor incapable of being underway or being operated, just as if it was sunk. Can you get in trouble for being on a sunken boat while under the influence??

The anchor? Oh it was just saving my place for the next day.

Click to expand...

That was the Exxon Valdez Captain's excuse also.

When all the noise died down, that turned out to be the case.
He drank after he realized he ran his ship aground.
I would too.

Wifey B: An update. I've been looking for something that would separate mooring and anchoring. Not found yet. Also looking for definitions of BUI. States say "operating" but don't define that. North Dakota is the first I've found that says "The motorboat or vessel must be operated, in motion, enroute but not aground or at anchor."

I stick with my rant on over consumption but I haven't yet found anything that supports anchoring or mooring being considered operating or not, other than North Dakota. Sounds like a legal interpretation to me and they're always fights.

Again we're discussing something none of us are aware of ever happening and talking like LEO's are going wild enforcing it.

Reminds me of returning from the Abacos in 2003. That was just after they instigated the really stupid check in requirements (e.g. needing to get to the INS office in a nearby airport after coming in) - totally ridiculous for boaters.

Well I went onto the Homeland Security web site and looked at the rule for checking in and it clearly stated that you must phone the nearest INS office and arrange a check in the first time you dock after arriving in US waters. We got back through Fort Pierce on Saturday, anchored at Cocoa Beach that night, and then continued on to our slip in Jacksonville Sunday. I then called the INS office in Jax and got a recording. I told them I had arrived back and would call the next day for an appointment.
When I called on Monday the INS guy was apoplectic that I hadn't checked in at Fort Pierce. I calmly told him that I had not docked until I got to Jacksonville, just anchored. That I was following what was on their web site! Got an appointment and drove my own car up the road on Monday!

Anchoring ain't docking in any man's book!

I'm no lawyer but I do teach the col-regs. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't operating (or driving) a boat require that the boat be Underway under the rules? In other words----( NOT ANCHORED aground or made fast to the ground )? Now if you are misbehaving in any number of other ways game on but the way I see it you are not operating. Any LEO who challenges a legally anchored boat to check on your sobriety is in my view pretty close to harassment. And by the way, in 40 years on and off the ICW, commercial and recreational, I have never seen or heard of this happening.

BandB said:

Also looking for definitions of BUI. States say "operating" but don't define that.

Click to expand...

Check this page, Chapter 327.02, paragraph 30.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

"(30) 'Operate' means to be in charge of, in command of, or in actual physical control of a vessel upon the waters of this state, to exercise control over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the vessel is underway upon the waters of this state, or to control or steer a vessel being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state."

Regarding the comments about COLREGS, being underway, and that sort of thing... Doesn't matter. This is a state law, and the state legislature in Florida has defined the terms. If you are "in charge of" the vessel then you are "operating" it. It does not have to be moving at all. The comment about "underway" is an OR, not an AND. So, if you are in control while underway, OR you are in charge of the vessel (even when not underway), you are operating. And if operating, subject to charges of BUI.[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

BandB said:

Again we're discussing something none of us are aware of ever happening and talking like LEO's are going wild enforcing it.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I was pointed towards one account where someone may have gotten a ticket for this when legally anchored for the night in Florida (although that's not really clear). The key to that incident (in my mind) is that the person who got the ticket admits to having been seriously drunk, and completely obnoxious with the officer. Yeah, well, that's ALWAYS a good way to get a ticket!

This is just not a problem that any reasonable person needs to worry about.

bayview said:

This is a very real issue here. When fireworks are planned LEOs tell some anchored or moored boats they must move. This usually happens just before dark after boats have been parked for a while.

Click to expand...

This happened to us a couple of years ago at a place we've anchored in the past (Cozy Cove on Lake Wahington). It hugely pissed me off since the "distance off" put us outside the Cove on a moonless night in 15kt winds - not pleasant.

So I chased this down this year and ended up in communication with the Fire Marshall for all freshwater activities in our county. The "distance off" is determined after the permit is applied for and is based on the largest device in the show. So if they upgrade for a Big Bang, everyone moves back. Except fixed structures don't move. ?

So boats...they don't like. Surrounded by water but they can't access them for fire or injury. They don't know where they are (neither do most boaters!). And they are invisible. The absolute worst - from their standpoint - are anchored and unable to maneuver. They really, really don't want people anchoring.

Interesting perspective...

denverd0n said:

Check this page, Chapter 327.02, paragraph 30.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

"(30) 'Operate' means to be in charge of, in command of, or in actual physical control of a vessel upon the waters of this state, to exercise control over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the vessel is underway upon the waters of this state, or to control or steer a vessel being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state."

Regarding the comments about COLREGS, being underway, and that sort of thing... Doesn't matter. This is a state law, and the state legislature in Florida has defined the terms. If you are "in charge of" the vessel then you are "operating" it. It does not have to be moving at all. The comment about "underway" is an OR, not an AND. So, if you are in control while underway, OR you are in charge of the vessel (even when not underway), you are operating. And if operating, subject to charges of BUI.


Absolutely. I was pointed towards one account where someone may have gotten a ticket for this when legally anchored for the night in Florida (although that's not really clear). The key to that incident (in my mind) is that the person who got the ticket admits to having been seriously drunk, and completely obnoxious with the officer. Yeah, well, that's ALWAYS a good way to get a ticket!

This is just not a problem that any reasonable person needs to worry about.

Click to expand...

Sounds like that definition of "operate" could also be applied to a boat tied up in a marina.

denverd0n said:

Check this page, Chapter 327.02, paragraph 30.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

"(30) 'Operate' means to be in charge of, in command of, or in actual physical control of a vessel upon the waters of this state, to exercise control over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the vessel is underway upon the waters of this state, or to control or steer a vessel being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state."

Regarding the comments about COLREGS, being underway, and that sort of thing... Doesn't matter. This is a state law, and the state legislature in Florida has defined the terms. If you are "in charge of" the vessel then you are "operating" it. It does not have to be moving at all. The comment about "underway" is an OR, not an AND. So, if you are in control while underway, OR you are in charge of the vessel (even when not underway), you are operating. And if operating, subject to charges of BUI.


Absolutely. I was pointed towards one account where someone may have gotten a ticket for this when legally anchored for the night in Florida (although that's not really clear). The key to that incident (in my mind) is that the person who got the ticket admits to having been seriously drunk, and completely obnoxious with the officer. Yeah, well, that's ALWAYS a good way to get a ticket!

This is just not a problem that any reasonable person needs to worry about.

Click to expand...

You have to read it in its entire. It has 2 qualifiers. I believe if someone received a citation in Florida while at anchor could prevail in court. The vessel has to be underway, i.e. moving........

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

You have to read it in its entire. It has 2 qualifiers. I believe if someone received a citation in Florida while at anchor could prevail in court. The vessel has to be underway, i.e. moving........

Click to expand...

Actually it is worded very poorly but if you read through all the "ors" you get

be in charge of, in command of, or in actual physical control of a vessel upon the waters of this state,

to exercise control over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the vessel is underway upon the waters of this state,

or

to control or steer a vessel being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state."

Wifey B: So since there is an "or" after the second comma it automatically extends the "or" to the first comma. So, grammatically, any one of the three situations means you're operating the boat. Anchored you would be in charge of, in command, and in physical control.

Now what makes it impossible to read is they have "or's" within "or's" as the first definition has an "or" in it.

Frankly, my dears, I don't think they have all their "or's" in the water.

They should be punished. F- to whoever wrote it.

Simple. When you see the blue lights, DROP THE ANCHOR!

I'm not sure anchored is any different than moored. In either case, the vessel can be vacated and therefore is not being 'operated' by anyone. If it's legal to vacate the vessel, why must it be considered 'operating' if people are present?

I think the men in blue are blowing blue smoke up someone's skirt.

FlyWright said:

I think the men in blue are blowing blue smoke up someone's skirt.

Click to expand...

Similar to every thread on this subject on any forum...

CPseudonym said:

Similar to every thread on this subject on any forum...

Click to expand...

Well, it's a lot of talk about something that is only a hypothetical, so you know it's not going to be great to start with. It's about like starting a thread asking, "I live in Nebraska. What precautions should I take if they forecast a hurricane for where I live?"

Oh, and I'm guilty of getting sucked in too. But I don't take it seriously.

Moonstruck said:

Simple. When you see the blue lights, DROP THE ANCHOR!

Click to expand...

If they see you drop the anchor you are clearly "in charge of, in command of, and in actual physical control of a vessel".

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. PB. DUI/BUI= Driving/Boating Under (the) Influence. Yup, tempest in a teapot indeed.

Click to expand...

Yes, thanks RT. I had worked out it meant literally Driver Under Influence, but when typing it, out came drunk in charge as the more colloquial description over here...

However, just to clarify...is there not a legal blood alcohol level below which you are ok, or is zero alcohol the law for driving or boat piloting in the US, (or Canada)..?

"But officer, I'm far too drunk to be 'in charge' of this vessel, let alone 'in control'."

Peter B said:

Yes, thanks RT. I had worked out it meant literally Driver Under Influence, but when typing it, out came drunk in charge as the more colloquial description over here...

However, just to clarify...is there not a legal blood alcohol level below which you are ok, or is zero alcohol the law for driving or boat piloting in the US, (or Canada)..?

Click to expand...

It varies by state but in most states now it is .08

Police here can charge you with DUI/BUI, which requires (non) sobriety evidence, or PCA (Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol, determined by blood or breath analysis), which needs only the analysis. (Then there`s PUI, involving only a keyboard).
Let`s not overlook things can go wrong while anchored."Three sheets to the wind", we might not cope too well.

Best to drink "indoors" and out of sight.



(Bottle was empty.)

BandB said:

It varies by state but in most states now it is .08

Click to expand...

Thanks BandB. That's the NZ level also. Aussie is considered extra tight only allowing 0.05.

BandB said:

It varies by state but in most states now it is .08

Click to expand...

Colorado has a limit between 0.05 and 0.08 where you can be charged for driving while ability impaired. 0.08 and above is a more serious charge. In an accident, as a driver, in most states, any alcohol in your system can potentially cause you pretty serious grief.

In the U.S. We have two levels of intoxication to be aware of.

The universal level is 0.08. That applies to everyone in a motor vehicle, boat, or transportation.

Then (pay attention if you have a TWIC card). If a person is subject to DOT drug testing then you can be prosecuted for being 0.04 to 0.08! This applies to CDL truck drivers, commercial boat crew, and people who have 'transportation sensitive' jobs. Railroad, aviation, and bus, taxi, limo drivers too. Once an observant prosecutor digs into the case it could be the lower limit. If the USCG is involved and you have an MMC then the 0.04 is definitely the limit.

Tossing a couple of other limits out. For underage, it's .02 in most places. That's the level at which it is considered evidence one has consumed alcohol.

Also, while some states have legally defined levels of impairment short of under the influence such as .05, in almost every state there is impairment and in vehicular homicide cases as well as civil cases impairment short of intoxication often comes into play. Their is strong enough scientific data to support that one's responses are impacted at .05 and above. So, even if one can't be convicted of DUI they can be assigned responsibility for the accident with their impairment as a contributing factor. Of course, others will be quick to point out that many other things can also impair you, from texting to lack of sleep to illness. And now in the US a whole new can of worms has opened wide and that is impairment due to marijuana. Most states laws do not cover that at all. Now when it was illegal to consume in all states, it was easy to just say you were guilty if you'd consumed. Now suddenly, it's a matter of how much. In some ways we're going back to the future in that with video of all interaction at the time of arrest including the field tests, juries are now often making their decisions based on that evidence. They still believe what they see often more than what a test shows.