2015 WDFW Proposed Legislation: Hunting Under the Influence

[Curly]

Curly, see my previous post for the answer

Thanks.  I must have been typing while you posted that.

Without a breathalyzer value, the judge or prosecutor would just have to take the officer's word for how impaired the guy appeared to be.

[Curly]

"...if the officer can't make the case without a breathalyzer then is the guy really intoxicated or posing a public safety problem?'

 If that were the case then Just why have prosecutors pursued cases where  the suspect. blew below the legal limit (DUI)  FOR DECADES when their only evidence was the arresting officers opinions (field tests)??  I'm betting they're  gambling that the suspect wants to keep the bills down and cop a plea to stop the attorney fees and the  state still gets some $$$$$$$$$$$. Once again BIG money talks!

That is something I feel needs changed.  They need to stop prosecuting people that blow below whatever the legal limit is set.  Seems crazy to me to have a legal limit of 0.XX and if an officer says you're impaired but yet you blow below that legal limit, you still get arrested.  That blows me away.

[Curly]

Ok, you guys have convinced me now that this law is not quite right.

Until they change it to be like some of those other states where they have a set BAC limit where below that you are not guilty, then I guess leaving the law as it is.......is the best option. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

"...if the officer can't make the case without a breathalyzer then is the guy really intoxicated or posing a public safety problem?'

 If that were the case then Just why have prosecutors pursued cases where  the suspect. blew below the legal limit (DUI)  FOR DECADES when their only evidence was the arresting officers opinions (field tests)??  I'm betting they're  gambling that the suspect wants to keep the bills down and cop a plea to stop the attorney fees and the  state still gets some $$$$$$$$$$$. Once again BIG money talks!

That is something I feel needs changed.  They need to stop prosecuting people that blow below whatever the legal limit is set.  Seems crazy to me to have a legal limit of 0.XX and if an officer says you're impaired but yet you blow below that legal limit, you still get arrested.  That blows me away.

Had a attorney tell me years ago to blow and do no other because so many fall into the opinion trap by thinking if they do the field sobriety test well that they will be okay but are actually opening themselves up to an imperfect humans judgement....

[Badhabit]

It may have been brought up before in this thread but what about telling the Warden you won't answer any of his/her questions.

[Mudman]

People baffle me. Welcome to Russia.

[bigtex]

I'm not arguing here, just trying to understand.  Seems to me that some of those other states have the right idea with 0.05 as a limit.  I'd rather rely on a set number than the judgment of an officer.

And what about drugs? Ya you can measure THC for marijuana, and boating and driving laws have been amended to include actual THC levels. But how could you measure if someone is high off of another drug, such as zanex, percocet, oxy? The answer is you can't. And that's why DUI laws in WA have 4 provisions; 1- BAC of .08 or more, 2-THC of 5.00 or more, 3-under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug, 4-under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, and any drug.

[bigtex]

Ridiculous.  Infringement.  Stupid.  Punish a person when he commits act not because he has increased potential to commit.

So basically don't do anything to the drunk hunter until he shoots someone? With that mindset I guess we shouldn't arrest drunk drivers until they hit something. 

The blow or be punished is an absolute violation of rights.

I guess you shouldn't go boating and drinking because you would find out the hard way that if you refuse to "blow" in WA you'd receive a citation, which the legislature has set a special fine of $2,050. All of this was done with overwhelming support of the legislature.

The WDFW bill doesn't set a special fine but rather defaults to the state normal for Class 1 Civil Infractions which would be a little over $500.

[idahohuntr]

Ridiculous.  Infringement.  Stupid.  Punish a person when he commits act not because he has increased potential to commit.

So basically don't do anything to the drunk hunter until he shoots someone? With that mindset I guess we shouldn't arrest drunk drivers until they hit something. 
How about we just use the existing laws which prohibit hunting under the influence?  If an intoxicated hunter is a public safety issue then current law would allow an officer to arrest him right?  Now, if the officer is overreaching and there is not really a public safety issue then a prosecutor may decline...but that is just fine in my book...keeps the public safe from intoxicated people as well as overzealous and senseless LEO's. 

The blow or be punished is an absolute violation of rights.

I guess you shouldn't go boating and drinking because you would find out the hard way that if you refuse to "blow" in WA you'd receive a citation, which the legislature has set a special fine of $2,050. Interesting fact, refusing to submit to a test for boating in WA is the most expensive ticket an officer in WA can issue, there are a couple other offenses which carry fines of $1,025. All of this was done with overwhelming support of the legislature.

The WDFW bill doesn't set a special fine but rather defaults to the state normal for Class 1 Civil Infractions which would be a little over $500.

[stuckalot]

Just how many more laws do we really need? I think we need a maximum WAC limit. "Sorry the administrative code is full, you'll have to repeal some outdated law before you can pass any new rules!" A recent book and report argued that there are so many laws on the books now that the average American commits 3 felonies every day!

[bigtex]

Ridiculous.  Infringement.  Stupid.  Punish a person when he commits act not because he has increased potential to commit.

So basically don't do anything to the drunk hunter until he shoots someone? With that mindset I guess we shouldn't arrest drunk drivers until they hit something. 
How about we just use the existing laws which prohibit hunting under the influence?  If an intoxicated hunter is a public safety issue then current law would allow an officer to arrest him right?  Now, if the officer is overreaching and there is not really a public safety issue then a prosecutor may decline...but that is just fine in my book...keeps the public safe from intoxicated people as well as overzealous and senseless LEO's. 

[/quote]

Here's how it currently works. (Obviously the below is HIGHLY modified for a simple post)

I saw someone hunting, they smelled of alcohol and exhibited slurred speech and red, watery eyes which are common signs of someone under the influence of alcohol. I asked him to perform field sobriety tests, he declined, I asked him to perform on a breathylzer, he declined.

Prosecutor, please file charges of hunting under the influence.

Any good lawyer could easily defeat that case. Why should a prosecutor file charges on something that they know could easily be defeated?

In comparison, if the guy did submit to a breathylzer and he blew a .20 it would be a lot harder for the defense attorney to say their client wasn't under the influence.

[csaaphill]

People baffle me. Welcome to Russia.

precisly 

[idahohuntr]

Here's how it currently works. (Obviously the below is HIGHLY modified for a simple post)

I saw someone hunting, they smelled of alcohol and exhibited slurred speech and red, watery eyes which are common signs of someone under the influence of alcohol. I asked him to perform field sobriety tests, he declined, I asked him to perform on a breathylzer, he declined.

Prosecutor, please file charges of hunting under the influence.

Any good lawyer could easily defeat that case. Why should a prosecutor file charges on something that they know could easily be defeated?

In comparison, if the guy did submit to a breathylzer and he blew a .20 it would be a lot harder for the defense attorney to say their client wasn't under the influence.

I would support this law if there was a minimum BAC.  Short of that, it leaves too much leeway to a crooked officer.  Look at the recent case in Idaho where an ISP trooper profiled a guy from CO, stopped him, swore he could smell marijuana and used that as pc to detain the guy for 6 hours and completely search his vehicle and treat him like garbage.  Tore the entire car apart and not one trace of marijuana...you want that guy demanding you take tests etc. because he swears he smelled alcohol on a hunters breath?  No thanks.  I'll take my chances being gunned down by one of these drunk hunters that must be everywhere that I don't hunt before I will support a law that gives a LE agency with a very sketchy background and leadership such wide latitude. 

I guess part of my skepticism of giving LEO's such leeway comes from the fact that one of my old friends is a former prosecuting attorney for spokane county...we work together now...he couldn't handle the absolute crookedness of police officers (and were not talking just one or two bad apples!)...in fact just the other day he was telling me how furious he got in one of his trials when he had a cop on the stand telling lies...he said usually prosecutors bring in detectives when they interview witnesses so if the witness changes their story at trial they can call a detective to the stand to impeach the lying witness.  It is apparently not common to do this when interviewing cops, as one would expect them not to lie on stand (i.e., tell the prosecutor one thing in a pre-trial interview and then something completely different on the stand!)...he learned his lesson. 

[montana44mag]

Ridiculous.  Infringement.  Stupid.  Punish a person when he commits act not because he has increased potential to commit.

So basically don't do anything to the drunk hunter until he shoots someone? With that mindset I guess we shouldn't arrest drunk drivers until they hit something. 

Probably not.
 It seems to be a violation of a persons natural rights to want to look inside their body and make them dance around on the side of the road merely for traveling with red, watery eyes. However, for the driver who hit someone drunk versus not drunk would probably be the difference between 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter meaning many more years in jail.

This idea of "precrime" is a little disturbing, and Im personally far more scared of someone on Prozac or Ambien.

Also, hunters have been using substances to alter their body chemistry while hunting for at least 12,000 years that we know of.

Maybe try being a good public servant and offer the guy a cup of coffee and a ride home instead of worrying about filling your quota and ruining their life. 

[Mudman]

Well said Idaho Why is the mindset of LEO to always support more laws?  Never seems they support less enforcement and laws?  Csaaphill, it never ends does it. If we can call it a priviledge instead then we can trample everyones rights.  Thats the way it works.  Driving, boating, hunting, recreating Dnr and Nat, forest, etc. etc.  All for the greater good and public safety.  Well I would rather have all rights and protect myself from crims and overreaching Gov.   Montana44mag Great points.  I agree but well you know, Socialism I believe its called.  Do the crime do the time.  Go shoot a deer with a buzz guys its fine with me.  But if you do and its illegal or you do sumthing irresponsible pay the price.  I see it that way.  Instead lets pass more laws which basically make it illegal to possibly commit a crime? What?  Its more dangerous for a intoxicated person to hunt with a weapon so lets get em by entrapmant of the breath test.  But they havent really done anything yet right?  Hey lets keep passing more laws until its a complete physical from doctor, a medic card, multiple gun certifications, location mapped and reported before hunt, registration of firearms which are to be turned in at local armory or police at end of hunt. A go pro camera mounted to you at all times with a gps anklet to keep track.  I think all these will benefit the greater good of public safety.  Funny thing is most crazy things I just said will likely happen sooner than later.