Drunk boating accident?

[rgano]

I gleaned this from the interweb today.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/investigator-home-security-cams-captured-200945431.html

One question comes to mind as a read this because I don't drink enough in a month to put in a thimble and thus have no first-hand experience with hangovers etc. Can traces of a good load of alcohol be gone from your body in nine hours to the point that the law can't detect it? Looks like this guy fled and others lied for him for a bit.

I am reminded of a story:

A lawyer friend of mine who was a very high ranking officer in the Army Reserve once got a call from one of his senior enlisted soldiers who had had a single car accident near a liquor store while driving in an intoxicated state. He knew the polce were on the way and wanted to know what to do. Not wanting to lose this otherwise sterling man's service, my friend told him to get into the liquor store, buy, open, and visibly consume some booze before the cops arrived.

Good thing there was not some booze at hand this boater could consume as a ruse to throw off the authorities.

 

[koliver]

Before DUI laws eliminated most of the previously available defences, experts were used who would give evidence as to the rate of elimination of alcohol from the blood, per hour before a test. IIRC, a 150# person would eliminate alcohol at the rate of 0.015 mg alcohol per mg of blood per hour, so a reading of 0.0 could still leave the testee with the possibility 9 hours earlier of up to 0.135 mg OH per mg blood. The legal to drive limit is 0.080. Drunk is still a possibility, despite the 0.0 test.

 

[Benthic2]

I think the rule of thumb is that an average size man can process about 1 drink per hour. So if you had 9 drinks you could be pretty impaired and blow a 0.0 nine hours later

all sorts of variability to individual metabolism, strength of the drink, size of the person etc.

 

[BandB]

I gleaned this from the interweb today.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/investigator-home-security-cams-captured-200945431.html

One question comes to mind as a read this because I don't drink enough in a month to put in a thimble and thus have no first-hand experience with hangovers etc. Can traces of a good load of alcohol be gone from your body in nine hours to the point that the law can't detect it? Looks like this guy fled and others lied for him for a bit.

I am reminded of a story:

A lawyer friend of mine who was a very high ranking officer in the Army Reserve once got a call from one of his senior enlisted soldiers who had had a single car accident near a liquor store while driving in an intoxicated state. He knew the polce were on the way and wanted to know what to do. Not wanting to lose this otherwise sterling man's service, my friend told him to get into the liquor store, buy, open, and visibly consume some booze before the cops arrived.

Good thing there was not some booze at hand this boater could consume as a ruse to throw off the authorities.

As to your first question, in 9 hours they'll never prove intoxication and if they weren't tracking the person every second, wouldn't know what intervened. Even on the roads, leaving the scene generally carries a smaller penalty than DUI resulting in wreck.

However,, there is plenty of other evidence and there are multiple charges to convict on. The conviction will still be severe.

 

[BruceK]

Police here often set up morning roadside PCA testing. Doubt they would if it didn`t yield positive results of .05 and up.

 

[draakken]

that's one of the interesting things i saw moving here to Australia was the frequency of roadside PBT (portable breath testing), and around here its 100% everyone gets a tube to blow in. I'm allays amazed at 6-7-8am they will nab a few at 0.25 or higher. That must have been a heck of a Tuesday night for them to still be 3x the limit the next morning.

 

[koliver]

that's one of the interesting things i saw moving here to Australia was the frequency of roadside PBT (portable breath testing), and around here its 100% everyone gets a tube to blow in. I'm allays amazed at 6-7-8am they will nab a few at 0.25 or higher. That must have been a heck of a Tuesday night for them to still be 3x the limit the next morning.

The committed alcoholic can stay drunk as long as his/her liver will permit.
I used to do some DUI cases. One I recall was tagged by the police at noon, after his shift driving a water taxi, and blew around .24. His habit was to start drinking at 6 or 7 PM, stop when the bottle was empty, sleep a few hours, then go to work.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Many moons ago we took the ferry from North Island New Zealand to Picton on South Island. Picked up a rental van and then drove on the curviest road I have ever seen or could imagine. Carved into sheer cliff faces. Any miscalculation would have meant a plummet to one's death. We emerged after 1 1/2 hours of continuous hairpin turns to a long, straight descent from the mountains to an open plain visible in the distance. As the road flattened out, I was flagged over by an LEO and asked to blow...This was @ 9:00 AM on a Sunday morning!!!!!! In the middle of NOWHERE! Not a sign of ANY civilization in sight.
I was both sober AND completely flabbergasted.

 

[BruceK]

The committed alcoholic can stay drunk as long as his/her liver will permit.
I used to do some DUI cases. One I recall was tagged by the police at noon, after his shift driving a water taxi, and blew around .24. His habit was to start drinking at 6 or 7 PM, stop when the bottle was empty, sleep a few hours, then go to work.

My record client scored .30. While driving, he had 3 collisions,with no memory of the third he did not contest had occurred.
Driving in rural areas it was not unusual to pass through a morning PCA(Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol) test set up. I suspect it in part suits the convenience of Police to test in daylight than at night after pubs Clubs and restaurants close.

 

[Alaskaflyer]

Anyone who has had a loved one as a hard-core alcoholic knows the only time they are not drinking is when they’re asleep. Or in the hospital. Lots of memories of a grandparent pouring copious amounts of bourbon in their morning coffee and aunts and uncles needing something to “take the edge off” before leaving for work.

 

[BandB]

My record client scored .30. While driving, he had 3 collisions,with no memory of the third he did not contest had occurred.
Driving in rural areas it was not unusual to pass through a morning PCA(Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol) test set up. I suspect it in part suits the convenience of Police to test in daylight than at night after pubs Clubs and restaurants close.

It's interesting reading about Australia and New Zealand as in the US, most states have severe limitations on random testing and even on setting up stops. Aggressive LEO's have tried vehicle checks near major strips of bars and had those ruled illegal.

Every state in the US has different laws. In some, a single DUI will cause you your license. In others, it takes many. Even in stopping a vehicle, the definitions of probable cause get complex. In most states, agreeing to the breathalyzer is optional. In others, the breathalyzer doesn't prove DUI without the field tests.

Once again, the US stands a leader in a very undesirable area, the problem of Driving under the influence.

 

[OldDan1943]

I was stationed near Atomic City in Idaho. We were told, if blood was to be drawn, you were federal property and only a corpsman could drawn blood. Of course it might take 8 or 9 hours for the corpsman to get to you. LOL

 

[BandB]

Anyone who has had a loved one as a hard-core alcoholic knows the only time they are not drinking is when they’re asleep. Or in the hospital. Lots of memories of a grandparent pouring copious amounts of bourbon in their morning coffee and aunts and uncles needing something to “take the edge off” before leaving for work.

We both had alcoholic fathers. Mine was distinguished business man. He drank every weekend and some weeknights. Did it all outside the home. Fortunately, he always called taxis. As time went on, he was more frequent. Still in the office at 9:00 AM with mouthwash and cologne to cover the smell. While he and my mother fought constantly over it, he wasn't abusive. My mother was the fighter. I planned nothing with friends, as I could never depend on conditions at home. We lived in a nice house in a nice neighborhood.

Wifey B: And my father was much different. Couldn't keep jobs. Drank every day of his life. Was abusive and my mom would do nothing about it. We lived in squalor. I spent nearly every moment at home in my room with my door closed and locked. I ran away and never saw them again.

 

[Alaskaflyer]

Been around functional alcoholics too who could manage to limit their drinking to binging at certain hours. One of my best bosses was one. Loved him to death but it was a problem and it’s gotten worse after he retired. He’s now divorced and incarcerated for a short time for an alcohol fueled disturbance with another group of drunks at a decently upscale restaurant in Seattle.

Somehow my parents didn’t catch this bug present in their parents thank goodness. I still drink more than I should but less than I could.

Back to the OP: many jurisdictions have both a per se law but also a general DUI and BUI statute on the books. A prosecutor with gumption can usually get around the hijinks such as those mentioned here to still gain a conviction on the general DUI statute. Plenty of evidence available in an accident besides a chemical test, as apparent in this linked case.

 

[Benthic2]

I think the prosecution will have a hard time proving impairment. They can get recklessness or endangerment but without any evidence or witnesses I don't see how they could get a DUI conviction.

The fishermen are not qualified to asses impairment and anyone at the bar where he was drinking can not be impartial because that's who the victiims were.

The only really damning thing is his voicemail confession......but that could be explained away by confusion exitement fear head injury etc.

 

[Alaskaflyer]

“No person shall operate, navigate, steer, or drive any moving vessel, or be in actual physical control of any moving vessel, nor shall any person manipulate any moving water skis, moving aquaplane, moving surfboard, or similar moving device while:
(1) Under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to operate, navigate, steer, drive, manipulate, or be in actual physical control of a moving vessel, moving water skis, moving aquaplane, moving surfboard, or similar moving device;”

I’m reasonably sure that - assuming they can prove he was operating - the act of striking another boat can be used to help prove his being under the influence to the extent of being less safe.

 

[SteveK]

I’m reasonably sure that - assuming they can prove he was operating - the act of striking another boat can be used to help prove his being under the influence to the extent of being less safe.

Do we know the other boat was properly lighted? defense argument.
My first thought on reading the article is this was road rage on the water.

 

[BruceK]

It's interesting reading about Australia and New Zealand as in the US, most states have severe limitations on random testing and even on setting up stops. Aggressive LEO's have tried vehicle checks near major strips of bars and had those ruled illegal......

"Every Police vehicle is a mobile RBT" goes the advertising slogan. Plus another,"If you are driving and going to drink,you need a Plan B"
Initially anyone stopped for RBT gets a roadside breath test, if positive they get tested on a machine. Refusing a test is an offence. Blood tests are taken in some cases.
When couples/groups are out and driving, there is usually a designated driver, I sometimes refer to the non driver as "the designated drinker".
It`s less about the rights of the drinking driver and more about protecting others placed at risk.

 

[catalinajack]

I had an uncle who was a weekend alcoholic. He was a WW2 vet, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge. He was in an anti-tank unit and crewed on seven tank destroyers (similar to Sherman tanks) that were knocked out. He never suffered a scratch throughout but was forever haunted by what he saw. He could never bring himself to watch a war movie. Anyway, Uncle Tony worked a factory job five days a week for forty years, sober. He went to church every morning. He was a gentle man but on the weekends he drank until his wife passed away. He promised his wife at her grave to stop drinking. And he did, not a drop until the day he died.

 

[OldDan1943]

Based upon living in GA for over 25 years, I observed it is common for men to drive anything while having a can of beer tucked securely between his upper thighs hence the phrase, "Here, hold my beer."

 

[Benthic2]

...I’m reasonably sure that - assuming they can prove he was operating - the act of striking another boat can be used to help prove his being under the influence to the extent of being less safe.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe for a charge of DUI to stick, they need proof of alcohol, and his test came up clean ( even though it was 9 hours after the accident ) The crash could be explained by a host of other possibilities....got a bug in his eye, had a siezure, fell asleeep, dropped his cigarette, etc. If it were an automobile accident I believe the charge would be "Driving to Endanger" and is still a serious charge.

 

[OldDan1943]

In GA, the points will appear on his diriver license. SURPRISE SURPRISE

 

[John R M]

that's one of the interesting things i saw moving here to Australia was the frequency of roadside PBT (portable breath testing), and around here its 100% everyone gets a tube to blow in. I'm allays amazed at 6-7-8am they will nab a few at 0.25 or higher. That must have been a heck of a Tuesday night for them to still be 3x the limit the next morning.

A few years ago we were on a minibus travelling to the Green Mountains. We came upon a roadside breath test, the young lady bus driver expected to be waived through. Nope, she had to stop and take the test. She said it was the first time she had been ever been stopped when driving the minibus.

 

[BandB]

“No person shall operate, navigate, steer, or drive any moving vessel, or be in actual physical control of any moving vessel, nor shall any person manipulate any moving water skis, moving aquaplane, moving surfboard, or similar moving device while:
(1) Under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to operate, navigate, steer, drive, manipulate, or be in actual physical control of a moving vessel, moving water skis, moving aquaplane, moving surfboard, or similar moving device;”

I’m reasonably sure that - assuming they can prove he was operating - the act of striking another boat can be used to help prove his being under the influence to the extent of being less safe.

Plenty of ways to convict on other violations if DUI isn't possible. DUI requires proving causal effect, not just result. How many drinks and when might do so. Breathalyzer might but only in the jurisdictions where it is in boating laws. In Chattanooga years ago during Riverfest they made hundreds of arrests coming out of Chickamauga lock only to have all tossed as TN law didn't have a section for the water. Last I knew, in Texas on the water, breathalyzer is only for probable cause but not as proof. Generally blood is the solid proof. They didn't get that in time in this case. However, other evidence will work for them and they may not get all the charges they want, but plenty.