2015 WDFW Proposed Legislation: Hunting Under the Influence

[bigtex]

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?

Correct. There was a court decision in 2012/13 that said a warrant was needed or of course consent. This year the legislature removed from boating laws that an officer can make the decision for blood without a warrant, this was done as a result of that court decision. Blood = consent or warrant.

[idahohuntr]

So do you have to be "drunk" or exceed a certain blood alcohol level to be cited?  Or if you literally had one beer 3 hours ago and they give you a breath test and you blow a .001 you are "under the affect" of alcohol?

[bigtex]

So do you have to be "drunk" or exceed a certain blood alcohol level to be cited?  Or if you literally had one beer 3 hours ago and they give you a breath test and you blow a .001 you are "under the affect" of alcohol?

You can be arrested for DUI for blowing a .001. If the officer can prove you "are under the influence" you can be arrested for DUI, boating under the influence, or hunting under the influence. Simply thinking you must be above .08 to be arrested for DUI is wrong.

[Curly]

I really don't see the problem some people are having with the proposal.  It seems like it is just allowing officers to use breathalyzers so that prosecutors will be more inclined to prosecute.  Don't we want the drunk guys out there hunting to be prosecuted? 

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

No they draw your blood under the implied consent law.  If you drive on a public roadway you give consent for the Leo to forcibly draw your blood.  Is this wrong bigtex?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308

[WSU]

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.

It sounds like the intent is for implied consent to mean that you have to submit to a breath test at the station but not in the field (same as DUI), correct?

[pianoman9701]

I really don't see the problem some people are having with the proposal.  It seems like it is just allowing officers to use breathalyzers so that prosecutors will be more inclined to prosecute.  Don't we want the drunk guys out there hunting to be prosecuted? 

Of course we don't want drunks handling firearms. However, the verbiage about testing for marijuana is tough. I'm unsure that the blood test they use can accurately determine the intoxication of the person being tested. That's one. Second is that intoxication is a judgement call for the officer and eventually, the prosecutor. I've been told that something like 75% of people convicted of driving under the influence in WA blew less than .08 BAC. They were convicted on results from field sobriety tests, the testimony of the arresting officer, and the statements made at the scene by the accused. I'm concerned that we'd be creating yet another law used to trap people. I'm undecided on this so far.

[WSU]

No they draw your blood under the implied consent law.  If you drive on a public roadway you give consent for the Leo to forcibly draw your blood.  Is this wrong bigtex?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308

Blood draws require a warrant.

[baldopepper]

Curly-I'm all for the law, just want to make sure it works.  As I see it, the revision as it stands now would just put a LEO in the position of making a good bust only to have it thrown out on a technicality.  Lots of guys would give up their wife before they'd give up their hunting licence so you can bet lawyers would be involved.

[pianoman9701]

No they draw your blood under the implied consent law.  If you drive on a public roadway you give consent for the Leo to forcibly draw your blood.  Is this wrong bigtex?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308

I don't believe that's true. Even if you decline to give a Breathalizer, you have to give consent for a blood test or the arresting officer must get a search warrant.

[Stein]

I really don't see the problem some people are having with the proposal.  It seems like it is just allowing officers to use breathalyzers so that prosecutors will be more inclined to prosecute.  Don't we want the drunk guys out there hunting to be prosecuted? 

The question is what constitutes "hunting".  According to the above language, if you are shooting squirrels with a slingshot on your back porch while having beers, you are now a felon and lose hunting privileges for 10 years.  Heck, throwing a rock at a bird is hunting by the definition.

We want drunk people to stay away from guns.  Under this, you could be drunk open carrying in a shopping mall and be legal, but you can't have a bow and arrow at the top of a mountain where nobody is nearby.

Pass a law saying it is illegal to posses a loaded firearm while intoxicated and be done.

[WSU]

I would have no problem with that as long as the implied consent is the same as for a DUI and "hunting" is defined clearly enough to exclude all the tangential activities (camping, having equipment once you're done hunting, being done hunting for the day but still in the field, etc.).  It'd be a bummer to have a couple cold ones in the afternoon after you were done hunting and get busted simply for being in the field after hunting.

[SCRUBS]

Why wasn`t this issue addressed years ago? It`s not like hunters and boaters haven`t been  drinking and smoking as long as there has been hunting and boating. Now they have a cash shortage, and all of the sudden they are concerned about safety? Hmmmm....

[Curly]

I really don't see the problem some people are having with the proposal.  It seems like it is just allowing officers to use breathalyzers so that prosecutors will be more inclined to prosecute.  Don't we want the drunk guys out there hunting to be prosecuted? 

Of course we don't want drunks handling firearms. However, the verbiage about testing for marijuana is tough. I'm unsure that the blood test they use can accurately determine the intoxication of the person being tested. That's one. Second is that intoxication is a judgement call for the officer and eventually, the prosecutor. I've been told that something like 75% of people convicted of driving under the influence in WA blew less than .08 BAC. They were convicted on results from field sobriety tests, the testimony of the arresting officer, and the statements made at the scene by the accused. I'm concerned that we'd be creating yet another law used to trap people. I'm undecided on this so far.

Good points.  One thing I don't agree with is the officer deciding if a person is impaired enough to be considered legally drunk.  I think if there is a BAC limit (like 0.08) then that should be the line; move it to 0.06 or 0.05 if necessary, but use an actual value instead of letting the officer decide.

20 years or so ago, back when the BAC limit was 0.10, I had to go get my roomate from the police station where he had been taken for DWI.  He blew well below the legal limit (0.06 if I remember right), but the officer still arrested him because he didn't like how he performed on the sobriety tests.  Thing is, I was with my roommate not too long before we both left to go home and he was definitely not drunk.  So, based on that experience, I've not had much faith in allowing the officer to make the determination of if someone should be considered drunk enough to be illegal to drive.

Yeah, marijuana testing I have no clue about.  That does seem like a tough one.

[KFhunter]

Drinking and hunting ain't my thing,  but I got lot's of hunting friends that like to take a nip of fireball or crack a beer while sitting with their back to a tree and I can't see a problem with it.

WA goes too far,  WDFW goes too far.


The way I see it if WDFW is ineffective at curtailing DUI's so how are they going to enforce this crazy law?   

The hunters at large are going to continue to nip their fireball and crack their beers; WDFW police are going to use it to hammer people on a very small scale,  doing nothing to curb the greater issue (drunk hunters) but seriously pissing off the tiny fraction of hunters affected by it. 

The public will loose more confidence in WDFW and this will likely drive an even bigger wedge between WDFW and hunters.


There are more hunters that drink while hunting than there is hunters who abstain until they get back to camp.




but then WDFW doesn't exactly rely on hunters dollars for funding do they?   WDFW= "hrm - screw the hunters we'll still get paid!!"