2015 WDFW Proposed Legislation: Hunting Under the Influence

[bigtex]

It's the end of summer/beginning of fall and that means one thing in the legislature/state agencies, it's the time when agencies are compiling their "agency requested legislation." This is essentially the legislation that agencies not only approve of, but are requesting. At the upcoming WDFW Commission conference call the commission will formally approve the 2015 agency requested legislation. I will be highlighting the 2015 WDFW requested legislation, and here is one of the proposed bills:

Concerning hunting under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

WA's hunting under the influence law is archaic and difficult to prove, so difficult that many prosecutors won't even look at filing charges. WDFW hopes to change that with this bill.

Per WDFW, here is the problem:

Hunting while intoxicated is against the law in Washington and most other states. Here and elsewhere, lawmakers have long recognized the inherent risk this activity poses to public safety and have taken steps to prevent it. Yet, Washington state’s law (RCW 77.15.675) is extremely difficult to enforce. One reason is that it does not require hunters suspected of being intoxicated in the field to take a breath test, depriving officers of this important piece of evidence. As a result, prosecutors often decline a case that is based entirely on an officer’s observation. In addition, the current law does not authorize a mandatory suspension of hunting privileges upon conviction, which would otherwise constitute a powerful deterrent to this behavior.

According to WDFW here is the solution:
Amend RCW 77.15.675 to include an “implied consent” provision that would penalize hunters who refuse to take a breath test or field test (e.g. walking in a straight line) when probable cause of a violation exists. Also, allow the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to immediately revoke and suspend the hunting licenses and privileges of those convicted of hunting while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs.

The proposed legislation would:
1. Increase the clarity of the elements of the offense;
2. Apply implied consent to a breath test while hunting in Washington;
3. Mirror boating while intoxicated and driving while intoxicated laws that penalize failing to provide a breath test when probable cause exists; and
4. Impose a mandatory suspension of hunting licenses and privileges for two (2) years upon conviction for a first-time offense and ten (10) years upon conviction if the person has a previous conviction under RCW 77.15.675.

[lokidog]

Sounds like a needed clarification, I'd be for that.

[JimmyHoffa]

So, when would this apply?  When you are busting brush with a round in the chamber or driving out of the forest at night and all your 'hunting' for the day is over?  Just asking...seems that if they pull you over during hunting season in an open GMU and you have hunting gear on you...if you have a hunting license, then you have given consent eventhough you may not have been hunting.  Would that count as 'in the field'?

[bigtex]

So, when would this apply?  When you are busting brush with a round in the chamber or driving out of the forest at night and all your 'hunting' for the day is over?  Just asking...seems that if they pull you over during hunting season in an open GMU and you have hunting gear on you...if you have a hunting license, then you have given consent eventhough you may not have been hunting.  Would that count as 'in the field'?

If you are driving you would be arrested for DUI. If you are out in the brush you would be charged for the hunting offense. That's how it currently works, and that's how it would work in the future.

[baldopepper]

So, when would this apply?  When you are busting brush with a round in the chamber or driving out of the forest at night and all your 'hunting' for the day is over?  Just asking...seems that if they pull you over during hunting season in an open GMU and you have hunting gear on you...if you have a hunting license, then you have given consent eventhough you may not have been hunting.  Would that count as 'in the field'?

  I, too, can see some problem with the definition of hunting.  Obviously if you're driving a DWI would apply, but what about a guy sitting in camp,glassing a hillside with a rifle next to him.  I think the  general clarification is good, but might need some refining as to when "hunting" actually is taking place.

[lokidog]

Seems easy to me, "hunting" is when anywhere in the field where one can legally hunt and in immediate possession/control of a weapon.     If you are helping on a deer drive, with no weapon, stumbling through the woods drunk, you'd be fine....   

[Elkaholic daWg]

So, when would this apply?  When you are busting brush with a round in the chamber or driving out of the forest at night and all your 'hunting' for the day is over?  Just asking...seems that if they pull you over during hunting season in an open GMU and you have hunting gear on you...if you have a hunting license, then you have given consent eventhough you may not have been hunting.  Would that count as 'in the field'?

If you are driving you would be arrested for DUI. If you are out in the brush you would be charged for the hunting offense. That's how it currently works, and that's how it would work in the future.

 How about if you were one of 3 passengers  with a sober driver?

[Curly]

Sounds like some good legislation to me.  I imagine with WA legalizing MJ use, there are more stoners out there hunting too.  I guess a breathalyzer won't do any good for seeing if someone is stoned.

I already figure that a lot of guys like to drink beer and drive around in the woods looking for deer or elk to shoot.  I'm always amazed at the amount of beer cans in the ditches or forest roads after deer or elk season opens.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I'm all for taking intoxicated drivers off the roads, intoxicated boat operators off the water, and intoxicated hunters out of the field.  If you're drinking or high, you don't need to be in immediate possession of a hunting weapon.  If you're in camp drinking and glassing, your rifle needs to be put away. 

I'm not a prude, some days we've started on the red beers by 10am.  But, that means we are done hunting for that day. 

[Stein]

So, let's say you are out hunting and shoot an animal.  Photos, dressing and quartering all take place.  You then intend to pack it back to your spike camp and out the next day.  So, you make your rifle safe, unload and pack the ammo/mag into your pack and the rifle into your scabbard in your backpack.  You and your buddy then pull out the celebratory flask and take a couple pulls.  As you are walking back to spike camp, you run into LEO who sees the flask in your hand (probable cause).

Are you hunting under the influence?

Second scenario.  You get back to camp after a day of hunting.  It is 30 minutes before legal hunting hours end and you crack a few beers.  You are in the field with a rifle during legal hours, what then?  I can see the case being made that if an animal walked up to camp, you would shoot, so you are still hunting.

I would prefer the language is tightened up.  If the weapon is in a safe, stored condition, this seems to be a bit much.  I can sit at home with a loaded rifle on the couch next to me and legally drink, but if I have an unloaded, stored weapon in camp or on a trail, I could be in trouble.

I don't like the "hunter in the field" language.  I think it needs to be "hunting" the verb, not "hunter" the noun.  You shouldn't have a loaded rifle in your hand while intoxicated.  To me, this should be across the board, not limited to hunting.  Pass a law that makes it a crime to have a loaded weapon in your immediate possession while under the influence and be done with it.

[pianoman9701]

I'm unsure how accurate the field pot tests are and am a little wary of further regulation which might possible allow the conviction of someone who's not actually under the influence at the time, i.e. someone who smoked pot last night but is no longer under the influence.

Also, the language is different from the current state law requiring implied consent. The field sobriety test is NOT an alternative to a Breathalyzer test. You can refuse to take the field sobriety test without automatically losing your license. However, if you take and pass a field sobriety test and then refuse to take the Breathalyzer, you still lose your license.

The proposed changes read: "Amend RCW 77.15.675 to include an “implied consent” provision that would penalize hunters who refuse to take a breath test OR field test (e.g. walking in a straight line) when probable cause of a violation exists."

This means that there would now be a penalty for refusing to take a field sobriety test, at least that's how I read this. I would have to oppose this rule on the grounds that it would change the implied consent law.

[pianoman9701]

And please allow me to clarify my stance by saying I'm completely against anyone using a firearm or hunting under the influence of drugs or alcohol. My concern rests solely with the issue of someone being penalized without being under the influence.

[baldopepper]

As some of the scenarios point out, without a very defining definition of what constitutes hunting (similar to the parameters of a DWI) I can see a good lawyer destroying many cases in court.  Like most others, I don't want to see a drunk or stoned person out there carrying a weapon so it would only make sense to close the loop holes at the same time the revision is made.

[bigtex]

Also, the language is different from the current state law requiring implied consent. The field sobriety test is NOT an alternative to a Breathalyzer test. You can refuse to take the field sobriety test without automatically losing your license. However, if you take and pass a field sobriety test and then refuse to take the Breathalyzer, you still lose your license.

The proposed changes read: "Amend RCW 77.15.675 to include an “implied consent” provision that would penalize hunters who refuse to take a breath test OR field test (e.g. walking in a straight line) when probable cause of a violation exists."

This means that there would now be a penalty for refusing to take a field sobriety test, at least that's how I read this. I would have to oppose this rule on the grounds that it would change the implied consent law.

The exact wording is as follows: "(5) Any person who hunts within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of this section, to a test or tests of the person's breath for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration in the person's breath if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person was hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a combination of intoxicating liquor and any other drug. The officer shall warn the person that if the person  refuses to take the test, the person will be issued a class 1 civil  infraction under RCW 7.80.120."

Read the boating laws. It's the same language in the boating laws. Basically all they did was move the boating wording to the proposed hunting law.

WA Boating law:
(4)(a) Any person who operates a vessel within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a test or tests of the person's breath for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration in the person's breath if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating a vessel while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a combination of intoxicating liquor and any other drug.
(5) The test or tests of breath must be administered pursuant to RCW 46.20.308. The officer shall warn the person that if the person refuses to take the test, the person will be issued a class 1 civil infraction under RCW 7.80.120.

[CarbonHunter]

What about the hunter who is sitting at the campfire drinking a beer with a pistol strapped on his hip (for personal protection) that has a 4" barrel and is over .24 caliber?  Is he hunting?

What if it's after hours? Is he hunting at night drunk?