2015 WDFW Proposed Legislation: Hunting Under the Influence

[bigtex]

To end the whole "is he hunting" debate. Here is the current WA definition of "to hunt"

"To hunt" and its derivatives means an effort to kill, injure, harass, harvest, or capture a wild animal or wild bird

[bobcat]

If you're sitting in camp, it should be pretty obvious that you're not hunting.

[Stein]

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

Would this only apply if you were arrested for something else?

[pianoman9701]

BT, now I'm even more confused by the verbiage:
"(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 way this reads, you can only be arrested for intoxication of a drug (like pot) if it's in conjunction with alcohol. It has no verbiage about testing for the presence of marijuana. This seems an odd omission, especially after pot becoming legal in this state.

[baldopepper]

BT- driving and boating are pretty simple to prove as compared to hunting.  As long as we have open carry with no law (at least that I know off, but certainly could be wrong) stipulating it's illegal to carry while intoxicated, I can see many of these cases being tough to prove.  I'm sure you've been involved in many cases where proving actual intent was difficult and made the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. Clear definitions of the law make a LEO's job much easier as I'm sure you know.  To much gray area in this one, and lawyers make a living of off "gray" areas.

[Stein]

If you're sitting in camp, it should be pretty obvious that you're not hunting.

I've shot more than one thing from camp. 

"To hunt" and its derivatives means an effort to kill, injure, harass, harvest, or capture a wild animal or wild bird

There is the problem, this relies upon the officer to determine your intent.  Also note that it isn't limited to big game or even animals that require a license.  Have a .22 in your pack?  Are you hunting squirrels or grouse?

Again, we don't want people drunk with loaded guns, regardless of what they are doing.

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

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.

The implied consent would always stem from the observations of the officer.  Which would leave a lot to believe that the officers would just use any reason to get probable cause to give a test.  And then when the test is refused the hunting rights would be taken on the spot, just like your driving privilege if you denied a breath test.  The DOL suspends your driving lisence if you refuse.  I would assume they do similar if this passes.  Just giving up all our rights one after the other.  I wont be able to crap without a fart test and if I refuse they suspend my water use so I cant flush.  This is ridiculous.   Might I add, it is already illegal to posses a firearm while intoxicated.  So this would only affect archers in a way.  I had my hunters ed instructor tell us that he liked to drink a beer while driving and hunting.  He said just not to get to drunk to where your over the driving limit.  Is there a limit or if I drink a cough suyrup and blow a .01 will I lose my right to hunt?

[pianoman9701]

It wouldn't just change things for archers. It would mean that you now can be charged with multiple crimes, including possessing a firearm while intoxicated in addition to hunting while intoxicated.

[Special T]

BT- driving and boating are pretty simple to prove as compared to hunting.  As long as we have open carry with no law (at least that I know off, but certainly could be wrong) stipulating it's illegal to carry while intoxicated, I can see many of these cases being tough to prove.  I'm sure you've been involved in many cases where proving actual intent was difficult and made the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. Clear definitions of the law make a LEO's job much easier as I'm sure you know.  To much gray area in this one, and lawyers make a living of off "gray" areas.

Fist off Its not illegal to carry while intoxicated. Had that conversatationwith a leo a while back.

A better example. Out pheasant hunting on private land and walk back to the truck. IM DONE hunting and crack open a Cold frosty beer to have with my buddies and the driver isnt drinking. We are on the side of the road ON PRIVATE LAND. The Warden drives by.

We are no longer hunting. I could be legally drunk if i wanted.

What circumstances is this change trying to solve? What senerios have NOT been procecuted that could under this new change.

[bigtex]

BT- driving and boating are pretty simple to prove as compared to hunting.  As long as we have open carry with no law (at least that I know off, but certainly could be wrong) stipulating it's illegal to carry while intoxicated, I can see many of these cases being tough to prove.  I'm sure you've been involved in many cases where proving actual intent was difficult and made the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. Clear definitions of the law make a LEO's job much easier as I'm sure you know.  To much gray area in this one, and lawyers make a living of off "gray" areas.

Fist off Its not illegal to carry while intoxicated. Had that conversatationwith a leo a while back.

No law in WA that says you can't be intoxicated and carrying a firearm!

[idahohuntr]

Like everyone else, I do not want to be around anyone who is intoxicated and handling a loaded weapon...however, I have some serious reservations about how this law could be applied.  We see what a complete mess LE is for WDFW...so I don't really support making it easier for them to take 2 years of hunting priveleges from folks unless there is a very clear danger...e.g., intoxicated beyond legal driving limits (.08?) and in immediate posession of a loaded firearm.  Frankly, it seems like there would be plenty of other reckless endangerement laws that could apply to these situations if this isn't just a LEO looking to bully someone with trumped up allegations.  I see the bunch of jackwagon LEO's for wdfw using this to hassle a guy who had one beer 3 hours ago and if he refuses to submit to the breath test they take his hunting lic. for 2 years    If there is really a problem with a bunch of drunks running around with loaded guns I would think there are numerous sufficient laws to serve justice...this seems like another unnecessary law that will simply give more power to WDFW LEO's to hassle mostly honest guys.   

[pianoman9701]

BT- driving and boating are pretty simple to prove as compared to hunting.  As long as we have open carry with no law (at least that I know off, but certainly could be wrong) stipulating it's illegal to carry while intoxicated, I can see many of these cases being tough to prove.  I'm sure you've been involved in many cases where proving actual intent was difficult and made the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. Clear definitions of the law make a LEO's job much easier as I'm sure you know.  To much gray area in this one, and lawyers make a living of off "gray" areas.

Fist off Its not illegal to carry while intoxicated. Had that conversatationwith a leo a while back.

No law in WA that says you can't be intoxicated and carrying a firearm!

An assumption on my part. Interesting. However, it is certainly a federal crime to be in possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled substance, such as marijuana. But, we digress.

[bigtex]

BT, now I'm even more confused by the verbiage:
"(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 way this reads, you can only be arrested for intoxication of a drug (like pot) if it's in conjunction with alcohol. It has no verbiage about testing for the presence of marijuana. This seems an odd omission, especially after pot becoming legal in this state.

Here is the full bill. Underlined words are new words that would be added to the current law, strikethrough words are to be removed from current law:

(1) A person is guilty of hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor ((or drugs)), marijuana, or any drug in the second degree if the person hunts ((wild animals or wild birds while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs)) within this state while possessing a firearm or other weapon for the purpose of hunting when the person is intoxicated or under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug.
(2) A person is guilty of hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug in the first degree if the person commits the acts described in subsection (1) or this section and the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section.
(3)(a) Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke and suspend all of the person's hunting licenses and privileges for a period of two years.
(b) Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in the first degree is a class C felony. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke and suspend all of the person's hunting licenses and privileges for ten years.
(4) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state does not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.
(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.
(6) Neither consent, nor this section precludes an officer from obtaining a search warrant for a person's breath or blood.
(7) An arresting officer may administer field sobriety tests when circumstances permit.

[bigtex]

I see the bunch of jackwagon LEO's for wdfw using this to hassle a guy who had one beer 3 hours ago and if he refuses to submit to the breath test they take his hunting lic. for 2 years    If there is really a problem with a bunch of drunks running around with loaded guns I would think there are numerous sufficient laws to serve justice...this seems like another unnecessary law that will simply give more power to WDFW LEO's to hassle mostly honest guys.   

If you refuse to test you don't lose your license. You only lose your license if you are convicted. If you refuse a test you simply get a ticket with a fine.

And honestly, I really don't know of any law I could charge someone who is drunk and is "running around with loaded guns" unless of course they are in a vehicle.

[pianoman9701]

So, a blood test can only be performed with the consent of the arrested party or with a search warrant? Without a warrant, I can refuse a blood test without penalty?