Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 09:28:13 AM
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.
Post by: lokidog on August 15, 2014, 09:35:33 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 15, 2014, 09:39:39 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 09:43:19 AM
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.
Post by: baldopepper on August 15, 2014, 09:43:52 AM
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.
Post by: lokidog on August 15, 2014, 09:48:41 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 15, 2014, 09:57:11 AM
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?
Post by: Curly on August 15, 2014, 10:00:40 AM
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. :o
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 15, 2014, 10:20:28 AM
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.
Post by: Stein on August 15, 2014, 10:23:01 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 10:24:11 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 10:28:39 AM
Post by: baldopepper on August 15, 2014, 10:32:43 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 10:42:19 AM
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 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."
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.
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.
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 15, 2014, 10:43:47 AM
What if it's after hours? Is he hunting at night drunk?
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 10:46:11 AM
"To hunt" and its derivatives means an effort to kill, injure, harass, harvest, or capture a wild animal or wild bird
Post by: bobcat on August 15, 2014, 10:46:14 AM
Post by: Stein on August 15, 2014, 10:47:18 AM
Quote
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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 10:53:13 AM
"(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.
Post by: baldopepper on August 15, 2014, 10:53:28 AM
Post by: Stein on August 15, 2014, 10:55:22 AM
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.
Quote
"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.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 15, 2014, 10:59:03 AM
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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 11:07:35 AM
Post by: Special T on August 15, 2014, 11:11:13 AM
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.
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 11:13:11 AM
:yeah: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!
Post by: idahohuntr on August 15, 2014, 11:15:42 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 11:17:25 AM
:yeah: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.
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 11:19:54 AM
BT, now I'm even more confused by the verbiage: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:
"(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.
(1) A person is guilty of hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor
(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.
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 11:23:41 AM
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 :bash: 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. :bash: :bash: :bash: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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 11:25:20 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 11:31:39 AM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 15, 2014, 11:32:30 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 15, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
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.
Post by: Curly on August 15, 2014, 11:44:39 AM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 15, 2014, 11:47:57 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308)
Post by: WSU on August 15, 2014, 11:53:28 AM
BT, now I'm even more confused by the verbiage: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:
"(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.
(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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 11:53:46 AM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: WSU on August 15, 2014, 11:54:32 AM
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 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308)
Blood draws require a warrant.
Post by: baldopepper on August 15, 2014, 11:54:49 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 11:56:11 AM
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 (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.
Post by: Stein on August 15, 2014, 12:00:23 PM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: WSU on August 15, 2014, 12:01:14 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on August 15, 2014, 12:01:55 PM
Post by: Curly on August 15, 2014, 12:04:59 PM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: KFhunter on August 15, 2014, 12:25:08 PM
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!!" :bash:
Post by: Alchase on August 15, 2014, 12:56:27 PM
Does this "only" effect in the act of hunting?
Drunk and carrying?
Or even in you own home having a few, and picking up you weapon to protect you or your family?
Post by: idahohuntr on August 15, 2014, 01:05:05 PM
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.:yeah:
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!!" :bash:
I hardly ever drink, but I am now firmly opposed to this legislation. The scenarios others have described point out some of the issues...a guy has a beer in hunting camp...could a LEO claim you were technically hunting if its still daylight and a gun is nearby? Probably, if he wants to be a jerk. A couple guys pheasant hunting have a mid-afternoon break with a beer, resume hunting after lunch...now they all lose their license for 2 years if a LEO wants to be a jackwagon? No thanks. I would actually be terrified to even have alcohol in a hunting camp if this law passes.
This is defnitely one of those laws that affects the honest guy way more than it will anybody that actually poses a public safety problem.
Post by: Stein on August 15, 2014, 01:55:07 PM
Quote
(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.
If you are a felon, you are also going to lose your right to own a weapon and any concealed carry permit you have as well as potentially 5 years in prison - not to mention tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
I don't see anything that prevents someone from getting into a huge heap of trouble for shooting at a squirrel in their backyard with a bb gun after having a few beers. I'm trying not to blow this out of proportion, but it seems to be very, very underthought. Or, thought out very well depending on where you stand.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 15, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
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 (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.
I think your right. But if I refuse is it auto suspension of hunting privileges? Like with driving? I personally know people that have had their blood taken by force. So it has happened and I think the case bigtex referred to was when it stopped. This is a joke of a bill, from the way it was written to the way it gets presented. Even on this site. I doubt this gets past any part of the senate or house.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 04:57:02 PM
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 (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.
I think your right. But if I refuse is it auto suspension of hunting privileges? Like with driving? I personally know people that have had their blood taken by force. So it has happened and I think the case bigtex referred to was when it stopped. This is a joke of a bill, from the way it was written to the way it gets presented. Even on this site. I doubt this gets past any part of the senate or house.
No, if they don't have a warrant and you refuse, that's it. If they get a warrant, you don't to refuse.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 15, 2014, 05:24:54 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 05:32:56 PM
I think they just say they can see visually that your high or drunk and get a warrant. And then you can't refuse? They take it by force?
If they get a warrant, yes, they take it by force.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 15, 2014, 05:40:28 PM
Post by: csaaphill on August 15, 2014, 08:04:38 PM
I really can not stand to read this crap .. This is nothing more than giving them more reasons to make money and harass the hunters .. I do not drink while hunting but when I get home or to camp I do .. So just like someone said earlier that if you and a couple buddies show up to camp before dark and your dressed in hunting clothes and your having a drink and they pull up I guarantee you they will cite you ... how many hunters in Washington have been shot by a drunk :dunno: Doubt that many ..and what really peeeeses me off it all about taking away our freedom ...Plain and simple ..Well I have a few words for them ...... You know the rest :dunno: :bash: :bash: I can not believe we all continue to obey any law they come up with because most of them are a bunch of crap ...just to make money..they copuld careless who got shot in the head .. :twocents: I drink to that :dunno: :chuckle: :brew:wow truly thefirst one here to truly disagree with this nice one.
We may disagree on other issues but this one I agree.
it's about money and that's it I bet we read if this passed about how some quota hungry warden arrests people in camp at night after hunt was over. OR better yet they got shot because they didnt agree they were doing anything wrong.
but ya money is all these things are about!
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on August 15, 2014, 08:44:41 PM
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.
Lots of camps are in the brush, so those camp can't drink now? :yike:
Yet one more crap law we don't need! :bash:
I don't think I have ever heard of a person being harmed, wounded, or killed by a hunter drinking or drunk in the state. Hmmm but I could be wrong. :o
Post by: CAMPMEAT on August 15, 2014, 08:56:48 PM
........and there are bottles on picnic tables etc.
Post by: sakoshooter on August 15, 2014, 10:23:32 PM
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'?
Good point. I can see this getting abused if the LEO was inclined.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 16, 2014, 10:33:08 AM
I really can not stand to read this crap .. This is nothing more than giving them more reasons to make money and harass the hunters .. I do not drink while hunting but when I get home or to camp I do .. So just like someone said earlier that if you and a couple buddies show up to camp before dark and your dressed in hunting clothes and your having a drink and they pull up I guarantee you they will cite you ... how many hunters in Washington have been shot by a drunk :dunno: Doubt that many ..and what really peeeeses me off it all about taking away our freedom ...Plain and simple ..Well I have a few words for them ...... You know the rest :dunno: :bash: :bash: I can not believe we all continue to obey any law they come up with because most of them are a bunch of crap ...just to make money..they copuld careless who got shot in the head .. :twocents: I drink to that :dunno: :chuckle: :brew:
I'm with ya BOWHUNTER.
From my post on the "director thread.....
:yeah:
also, how about a director who asks the legislature for actions beneficial to the game animals the agency was created to protect, instead of the requests to appropriate more money by expanding DFW LEO's police authority, as the deer, elk and other game species pay the price, since their workload just moved farther from their original purpose. (AGAIN!)
Post by: snowpack on August 16, 2014, 10:44:37 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 16, 2014, 10:49:29 AM
Post by: Mike450r on August 16, 2014, 06:41:25 PM
Post by: Special T on August 16, 2014, 06:58:16 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 16, 2014, 08:45:59 PM
The felony penalty is for a second time offender.Quote(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.If you are a felon, you are also going to lose your right to own a weapon and any concealed carry permit you have as well as potentially 5 years in prison - not to mention tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Post by: bigtex on August 16, 2014, 08:49:55 PM
I hardly ever drink, but I am now firmly opposed to this legislation. The scenarios others have described point out some of the issues...a guy has a beer in hunting camp...could a LEO claim you were technically hunting if its still daylight and a gun is nearby? Probably, if he wants to be a jerk. A couple guys pheasant hunting have a mid-afternoon break with a beer, resume hunting after lunch...now they all lose their license for 2 years if a LEO wants to be a jackwagon? No thanks. I would actually be terrified to even have alcohol in a hunting camp if this law passes.The definition I provided for hunting is for ALL state laws not just the proposed changes to the hunting under the influence laws.
This is defnitely one of those laws that affects the honest guy way more than it will anybody that actually poses a public safety problem.
Your scenario of being at camp having a beer with the gun nearby is crazy. With that scenario then everybody sitting in camp all across the state during rifle season without orange on would be getting cited for no hunter orange. And I am sitting here right now saying that has never happened.
There is not an officer in this state that would say a bunch of guys sitting in hunting camp are actively hunting.
Post by: bigtex on August 16, 2014, 08:57:24 PM
Actually that's not true either. Simply possessing a firearm and a controlled substance isn't a federal crime. The offense you are referring to states it's unlawful for an unlawful user or addict of an illegal drug to possess a firearm. Now obviously 99.9999% of people who possess illegal drugs are unlawful users of that drug. However, when it comes to getting a conviction the prosecutor must prove the person is an unlawful user or addict of the drug. I could walk around all day long with a gun in one hand a bag of marijuana in the other and not be violating federal laws, until an officer somehow can prove I am a user/addict.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.:yeah: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!
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 16, 2014, 09:08:37 PM
When you consider the number of people who are convicted of DUI due in large part to the word of the arresting officer that the person was under the influence even when blowing under the 0.08 limit, it sounds like a dangerous law to me. Are we trying to create felons or to make hunting safer? And, is this presently a big problem? I haven't seen it. Are we passing a law to solve a problem which for all intents and purposes, isn't a big problem? Personally, I don't have any evidence that it is. :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on August 16, 2014, 09:19:00 PM
This is a joke of a bill, from the way it was written to the way it gets presented. Even on this site. I doubt this gets past any part of the senate or house.As I posted earlier, this bill is modeled after the current boating law, everything from the mandatory test to the citation for refusing the test.
The boating law was enacted in 2013. The Republican controlled Senate passed the bill 46-2. The Democrat controlled House passed the bill 84-13.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 17, 2014, 06:27:12 AM
And btw in wa, conceal carry isn't legal if your drunk or high. Not sure of penalties but they can't take the firearm.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 17, 2014, 08:31:50 AM
I've had a few, so bare with me. Don't worry; I'm not hunting!:yeah:
When you consider the number of people who are convicted of DUI due in large part to the word of the arresting officer that the person was under the influence even when blowing under the 0.08 limit, it sounds like a dangerous law to me. Are we trying to create felons or to make hunting safer? And, is this presently a big problem? I haven't seen it. Are we passing a law to solve a problem which for all intents and purposes, isn't a big problem? Personally, I don't have any evidence that it is. :dunno:
Post by: Bofire on August 17, 2014, 03:22:21 PM
Carl
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 17, 2014, 03:39:01 PM
Post by: bowbuild on August 17, 2014, 05:36:10 PM
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
Yes, I was just looking for that definition, and wonder if "hunt" even fits. If there are no animals present are you truly hunting?.....or just walking with a weapon?? Just a thought, technicalities are are something to consider.
Some may say this is rediclious but here is a example..... (changing the subject as a example) I have talked to wardens that have told me that to have a firearm in my rig while bowhunting is a crime, and I say that is B.S. You can have a firearm in your vehicle, it is not until you step out and persue that by the definition above that you begin to "hunt." If that was not true every warden could write you for hunting from your rig simply for driving down the road and having any weapon. Maybe Bigtex can clarify.....whether I am right or wrong, I am very interested in his opinion.
Bowbuild
Post by: csaaphill on August 17, 2014, 08:15:50 PM
We truly need to be ever watchfull of these feel good legislations like this and dissect them and see the true intent and not sign on just because it may look good on the surface.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 17, 2014, 08:19:39 PM
I disagree bigtex...we've got plenty of examples from uc just how clueless and out of touch many natural resource LE's are...if a guy is willing to cite a mentally handicapped kid for no fishing license I guarantee you there are a 1000 more officers in this state who would be happy to harass and maybe even cite hunters in/near camp with a beer during hunting season.I hardly ever drink, but I am now firmly opposed to this legislation. The scenarios others have described point out some of the issues...a guy has a beer in hunting camp...could a LEO claim you were technically hunting if its still daylight and a gun is nearby? Probably, if he wants to be a jerk. A couple guys pheasant hunting have a mid-afternoon break with a beer, resume hunting after lunch...now they all lose their license for 2 years if a LEO wants to be a jackwagon? No thanks. I would actually be terrified to even have alcohol in a hunting camp if this law passes.The definition I provided for hunting is for ALL state laws not just the proposed changes to the hunting under the influence laws.
This is defnitely one of those laws that affects the honest guy way more than it will anybody that actually poses a public safety problem.
Your scenario of being at camp having a beer with the gun nearby is crazy. With that scenario then everybody sitting in camp all across the state during rifle season without orange on would be getting cited for no hunter orange. And I am sitting here right now saying that has never happened.
There is not an officer in this state that would say a bunch of guys sitting in hunting camp are actively hunting.
I regularly defend many of wdfw's actions...but one area I can not stand is the LE side...I think about 75% of them need fired immediately...just wipe the slate clean. They certainly do not need a law like this :bash: Speaking of which...has anyone presented the NEED for this law? Are we seeing a lot of people injured/harmed by drunk hunters? Such that we need to close this "loophole" whereby they don't have to take breathalyzer tests or whatever this stupid law is supposed to fix? Bigtex, can you provide some supporting incidents in WA where someone was injured or harmed by an intoxicated hunter? I'm sure it has happened before, so maybe I'm just an anomaly having not really seen/heard of any injuries that were directly related to drinking/drugs and hunting. :dunno:
Post by: csaaphill on August 17, 2014, 08:30:36 PM
On our end though that was the first time I've ever heard of this in all the years I've been hunting.
We've always had some beer in camp maybe some snake bite medicine as dad would put it for after the hunt! and never shot no one.
Post by: bigtex on August 17, 2014, 08:34:32 PM
Well if you want to "go by the law" then it is illegal to drink "in public" on DNR and WDFW lands. WA's drinking in public law only creates an exemption for State Parks. I even created a thread about this last year (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,141382.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,141382.0.html)) . I know of, and have never heard of anybody being cited for drinking in public on DNR/WDFW lands. But technically, everyone enjoying a cold one in public view on DNR/WDFW lands is violating the law. Now if an officer really wanted to piss people off and rack up a lot of citations all they would have to do is drive through hunting camps and cite everyone with an adult beverage.I disagree bigtex...we've got plenty of examples from uc just how clueless and out of touch many natural resource LE's are...if a guy is willing to cite a mentally handicapped kid for no fishing license I guarantee you there are a 1000 more officers in this state who would be happy to harass and maybe even cite hunters in/near camp with a beer during hunting season.I hardly ever drink, but I am now firmly opposed to this legislation. The scenarios others have described point out some of the issues...a guy has a beer in hunting camp...could a LEO claim you were technically hunting if its still daylight and a gun is nearby? Probably, if he wants to be a jerk. A couple guys pheasant hunting have a mid-afternoon break with a beer, resume hunting after lunch...now they all lose their license for 2 years if a LEO wants to be a jackwagon? No thanks. I would actually be terrified to even have alcohol in a hunting camp if this law passes.The definition I provided for hunting is for ALL state laws not just the proposed changes to the hunting under the influence laws.
This is defnitely one of those laws that affects the honest guy way more than it will anybody that actually poses a public safety problem.
Your scenario of being at camp having a beer with the gun nearby is crazy. With that scenario then everybody sitting in camp all across the state during rifle season without orange on would be getting cited for no hunter orange. And I am sitting here right now saying that has never happened.
There is not an officer in this state that would say a bunch of guys sitting in hunting camp are actively hunting.
Bigtex, can you provide some supporting incidents in WA where someone was injured or harmed by an intoxicated hunter? I'm sure it has happened before, so maybe I'm just an anomaly having not really seen/heard of any injuries that were directly related to drinking/drugs and hunting. :dunno:
But to your point, I can't remember the last time a hunter in WA was involved in an incident and they were drunk. 2 or 3 years ago a USFS LEO in Georgia was killed by a drunk coyote hunter. Now that being said, should we essentially legalize hunting while intoxicated because nobody has been hurt recently? Obviously these cases are tried to be made because otherwise officers wouldn't know that prosecutors won't accept them without some type of test.
Post by: bigtex on August 17, 2014, 08:35:37 PM
not to support the other end of those that said they think this is good, but ya there was an incident here in 2011 or 2012 or so where two guys were camping and drinking a fight broke out and the other shot his friend. he did drive to town though and admit his offence and is now in Prison, or has been giving a leniount sentence.He wasn't charged under this offense.
Post by: Curly on August 17, 2014, 08:41:43 PM
Officers currently could bust people with the law for most of the examples people are worrying about. Maybe the penalties being so stiff is worrying some guys?
Post by: bigtex on August 17, 2014, 08:44:52 PM
hunting while drunk is already illegal. All this law would do is make breathalyzers mandatory and make the penalties stiffer.:yeah:
Officers currently could bust people with the law for most of the examples people are worrying about. Maybe the penalties being so stiff is worrying some guys?
Officers can already arrest you for hunting under the influence. They just can't make you submit to tests. All this legislation would do is 1- require tests 2- provide for a penalty for those that refuse a test 3- hunting license suspension upon conviction 4- create a felony offense for repeat offenders.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 18, 2014, 06:48:26 AM
So here's an example. I get drunk and hunt and get caught. Let's say I'm a younger guy when that happens then I get older wiser and quit drinking. I get sick one day before season and get some cough syrup and go hunt. Get pulled by wdfw John brown and I have my second offense felony conviction and I'll never touch a firearm again.
This seems like a petty offense to be handing out felony convictions. Quit giving them more and more reasons to take your right to bear arms. The felons who don't need guns are more than likely not in hunting camp. I don't see this petty offense as a justified reason to give one a felony conviction. Maybe 3rd or fourth offense. When does the oversight just become ridiculous, overbearing and suspect.
Post by: Special T on August 18, 2014, 08:38:37 AM
Thanks tex! The bill won't pass. As others have said there's no serious need for it. Like there is for boating under the influence. Much higher rate of DUI and bui then drunks hunting.
And btw in wa, conceal carry isn't legal if your drunk or high. Not sure of penalties but they can't take the firearm.
Please state the RCW. Big tex has stated, an i have heard from a Leo that TRIED to find one, there is no law prohibiting it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 18, 2014, 08:45:11 AM
Thanks tex! The bill won't pass. As others have said there's no serious need for it. Like there is for boating under the influence. Much higher rate of DUI and bui then drunks hunting.
And btw in wa, conceal carry isn't legal if your drunk or high. Not sure of penalties but they can't take the firearm.
Not sure this is correct, but it sure is good advice. If that OIL perp tag comes along and you've had anything to drink or smoke, you're at the very least going to have a lot of legal bills. At worst, prison time. It's just like driving. You don't have to be at fault to be convicted of vehicular homicide. You just have to be drunk.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 18, 2014, 08:50:17 AM
Section 1- subsection e.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 18, 2014, 08:54:53 AM
They have to be both in a place requiring a CPL and be intoxicated.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 18, 2014, 08:58:08 AM
Post by: Curly on August 18, 2014, 08:59:53 AM
If I step out my front door i would need the permit to conceal a pistol. Any where in public.Not if you are on your way to recreating in the outdoors.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 18, 2014, 09:01:17 AM
Post by: Curly on August 18, 2014, 09:03:29 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 18, 2014, 09:18:50 AM
Yes even on your way to hunt. Concealed is concealed. Even in my vehicle. To have it loaded and concealed and be intoxicated.
Again, it says "where a concealed license is required". The CPL isn't required on the way to or from an outdoor activity or shooting range.
Post by: Special T on August 18, 2014, 09:29:44 AM
This would not apply to your place of work or home. I wounder if it applies to a friend or family members place...
Since it WILL cost you big $ if you shoot some one, even justly, It would be a REALLY bad idea to shoot some one while drinking. It would just compound the problems.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 18, 2014, 09:42:32 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 18, 2014, 10:33:01 PM
Pennsylvania Mandatory test. If you refuse to test your hunting and trapping license will be suspended for 1 year. If you've refused within the previous three years your license will be revoked for 3 years. BAC of .05 or below = not under the influence, .05 to .10 = not automatically under the influence, but can be determined to be under the influence with additional tests, .10+= under the influence. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=34&div=0&chpt=25&sctn=2&subsctn=0 (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=34&div=0&chpt=25&sctn=2&subsctn=0)
Georgia Mandatory test. It is unlawful to hunt if 1)Under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to hunt; (2) Under the influence of any drug to the extent that it is less safe for the person to hunt;(3) Under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is less safe for the person to hunt;(4) The person's alcohol concentration is 0.10 grams or more at any time within three hours after such hunting from alcohol consumed before such hunting ended. If you refuse to test and are convicted of hunting under the influence you will lose your license for two years. BAC of .05 or below = not under the influence, .05 to .08 = not automatically under the influence, but can be determined to be under the influence with additional tests, .08+= under the influence. "Hunting" means pursuing, shooting, killing, taking, or capturing wildlife or feral hogs. This term also includes acts such as placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used to take wildlife or feral hogs, whether any such act results in taking or not, and includes every act of assistance to any person in taking or attempting to take such wildlife or feral hogs.
http://statutes.laws.com/georgia/title-27/chapter-3/article-1/part-1/27-3-7 (http://statutes.laws.com/georgia/title-27/chapter-3/article-1/part-1/27-3-7)
Texas Unlawful to hunt "under the influence of alcohol or consumes an alcoholic beverage while engaged in hunting activities, or publicly consumes or displays an alcoholic beverage." https://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/public/lands/table_contents/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0112a_prohibited.pdf (https://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/public/lands/table_contents/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0112a_prohibited.pdf)
-----------------------------------
Most states have an across the board possessing a firearm while intoxicated law which doesn't require them to enact a separate hunting offense. As was already mentioned, WA does not have such law.
Here's what I find interesting:
Texas not only can you not be under the influence while hunting, but you can't even publicly consume an alcoholic beverage. So you can't hike all day, open 1 cold one and move one.
Georgia Georgia's definition of "hunting" includes someone simply helping another hunter. So in Georgia a father taking his son hunting could be charged for hunting under the influence even though the father had no means to actually kill wildlife.
Pennsylvania Their legal limit is .10, but you can be arrested at .05 if through other tests (walk and turn, etc) you appear to be under the influence.
Post by: bigtex on August 18, 2014, 10:48:20 PM
The way i read that is that you FIREARM my be forfitted but says nothing about it being illegal to carry. I could be wrong but as i understand it you would have to be cited for something else THEN have your pistol forfitted.For the most part you got it
RCW 9.41.098 is NOT a crime, it's simply a forfeiture law.
Post by: Romulus1297 on August 18, 2014, 11:18:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 19, 2014, 08:31:23 AM
Next I thought if you smoked marijuana you could not own a firearm in the US :dunno: If I am wrong on the next part that could save a lot of lbs versus cooler or baggy :dunno:You can't be in the possession of a firearm if you are an unlawful user or addict of an illegal drug. This includes "recreational" and "medical" marijuana.
It's a federal law, which complicates things. It means you will be investigated by the ATF. If you think the ATF and federal prosecutors are going to take this type of case because you found a 25 year old kid hunting with a rifle that had a half ounce of marijuana on him then I can sell you some oceanfront property in Arizona. Typically these types of cases are only prosecuted if a) the person has a lengthy criminal history, typically involving previous drug or firearm violations or b) the individual is growing marijuana and is possessing firearms.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 19, 2014, 09:30:45 AM
Post by: montana44mag on August 19, 2014, 09:57:17 AM
First of all, murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence, and game violations are already illegal.
Is another law allowing the gov. INSIDE your body going to help reduce crime? If so, perhaps in a few years we could install a microchip in ALL hunters, drivers, boaters, etc, that would constantly report to the state, or perhaps a mini-UAV that follows you around, or both. That is the kind of place a slippery slope like this will lead to eventually.
Secondly, this law undoubtedly will not cover prescription medications, such as opiates, sedatives, aderral and other types of "legal speed", or SSRIs which many people suspect have been influential in nearly ALL recent mass murders, and cause an increased risk of suicide and other extreme behaviors.
I think we really need to ask ourselves, "who owns my body"? Does the community or gov. own us? And if so, do they have the right to look inside anytime they please? And if so, would the possible slight decrease in crimes and accidents be worth living in the environment we created?
Would we really want to live in a world where every law could be upheld ALL the time?
Remember what Ben Franklin said about security versus liberty?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 19, 2014, 10:02:43 AM
Post by: Mudman on August 19, 2014, 10:15:22 AM
Post by: baldopepper on August 19, 2014, 10:35:04 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 10:52:09 AM
I don't think any normal person would really have a problem with it being expanded to simply cover possession of a loaded weapon while in an impaired state, but I'm sure some think it's one of their basic freedoms to get drunk and wander around with a loaded gun.I don't believe this fairly captures the opposition to this bill. Nobody wants someone unsafe/unfit to handle a loaded weapon around anyone...under any circumstance.
For me, the issue is it gives huge leverage for an officer who lacks any common sense (and there are plenty of them in WDFW) to punish/harrass safe, law abiding citizens. Many examples have already been given. It is already illegal to hunt under the influence...if the officer can't make the case without a breathalyzer then is the guy really intoxicated or posing a public safety problem? I guess I am just not seeing what public safety problem this addresses...I understand it makes prosecution more difficult to not have this law...but I'm not interested in supporting laws that erode rights (the ability to refuse a breathalyzer) while doing nothing to protect public safety. Its obviously a bill being pushed by WDFW LEO's so they have another tool in their "in case I want to be a jackwagon" toolbox.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 19, 2014, 11:02:01 AM
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 $$$$$$$$$$$. Once again BIG money talks!
Post by: baldopepper on August 19, 2014, 11:09:55 AM
Post by: Curly on August 19, 2014, 11:10:29 AM
I'm not arguing here, just trying to understand. Seems to me that some of those other states have the right idea with 0.05 as a limit. I'd rather rely on a set number than the judgment of an officer.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 19, 2014, 11:14:56 AM
Post by: Curly on August 19, 2014, 11:20:49 AM
Curly, see my previous post for the answer
Thanks. I must have been typing while you posted that.
Without a breathalyzer value, the judge or prosecutor would just have to take the officer's word for how impaired the guy appeared to be.
Post by: Curly on August 19, 2014, 11:23:33 AM
"...if the officer can't make the case without a breathalyzer then is the guy really intoxicated or posing a public safety problem?'
If that were the case then Just why have prosecutors pursued cases where the suspect. blew below the legal limit (DUI) FOR DECADES when their only evidence was the arresting officers opinions (field tests)?? I'm betting they're gambling that the suspect wants to keep the bills down and cop a plea to stop the attorney fees and the state still gets some $$$$$$$$$$$. Once again BIG money talks!
That is something I feel needs changed. They need to stop prosecuting people that blow below whatever the legal limit is set. Seems crazy to me to have a legal limit of 0.XX and if an officer says you're impaired but yet you blow below that legal limit, you still get arrested. That blows me away. :bash:
Post by: Curly on August 19, 2014, 11:27:16 AM
Until they change it to be like some of those other states where they have a set BAC limit where below that you are not guilty, then I guess leaving the law as it is.......is the best option. :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 19, 2014, 02:49:51 PM
"...if the officer can't make the case without a breathalyzer then is the guy really intoxicated or posing a public safety problem?'
If that were the case then Just why have prosecutors pursued cases where the suspect. blew below the legal limit (DUI) FOR DECADES when their only evidence was the arresting officers opinions (field tests)?? I'm betting they're gambling that the suspect wants to keep the bills down and cop a plea to stop the attorney fees and the state still gets some $$$$$$$$$$$. 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. :bash:
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....
Post by: Badhabit on August 19, 2014, 03:58:12 PM
Post by: Mudman on August 19, 2014, 05:15:38 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 19, 2014, 06:21:57 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on August 19, 2014, 06:29:10 PM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 06:45:22 PM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: stuckalot on August 19, 2014, 06:49:53 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 19, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
[/quote]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. :twocents:
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.
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.
Post by: csaaphill on August 19, 2014, 08:00:28 PM
People baffle me. :bash: Welcome to Russia.precisly :yeah:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 08:39:33 PM
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.
Post by: montana44mag on August 19, 2014, 09:26:05 PM
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. :twocents:
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. :dunno:
Post by: Mudman on August 19, 2014, 09:43:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 19, 2014, 09:47:37 PM
Or the person could be intelligent enough to not partake in activities that could impair themselves while hunting, and not cause themselves further harm or those around them harm :dunno: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. :dunno: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. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on August 19, 2014, 09:58:46 PM
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?You do realize it's already a crime for someone to hunt while under the influence correct? Your whole "new crime" thing doesn't fly. It's not as if I can go hunting while drunk today, but couldn't if this bill passes.
"All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given his implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination). This is largely because in the United States, driving is considered a privilege rather than a right, and the state has a legitimate interest in keeping dangerously intoxicated drivers off the road, to prevent injury, property damage, and loss of life. In most states, however, the police must have reasonable grounds for administering a sobriety test" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent#Implied_consent_and_driving_while_intoxicated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent#Implied_consent_and_driving_while_intoxicated)
WA law states if you have a driver's license you have given implied consent to tests
WA law states if you are boating you have given implied consent to tests
This bill would follow the above, and state if you are hunting you have given implied consent to tests
It's not as if only a handful of states have implied consent law, or just the "blue" states, ALL states have them.
For some reason mudman I think you would have a hard time saying the actions outlined in this bill would be entrapment. Then again, that case wouldn't happen in the Court of Mudman....
Post by: bigtex on August 19, 2014, 10:04:37 PM
Why is the mindset of LEO to always support more laws?You may want to read news stories about almost all gun legislation. Nearly everytime there is a "controversial" gun proposal you see LEOs against it. As an example, the largest LE organization in WA is against expanding gun background checks in WA.
I have had several posts on this site regarding decriminalizing some natural resource offenses in WA, not making them totally legal, but making them able to be taken care of via a ticket/fine and not appearing before a judge. As an example, if you leave a campfire unextinguished you committed a misdemeanor, used a rake to harvest huckleberries you committed a gross misdemeanor, didn't wear an emergency cut-off switch on a jet ski a misdemeanor. All of those things could easily be handled by a ticket. But current WA law those individuals committing these offenses must appear before a judge.
Post by: montana44mag on August 19, 2014, 10:15:17 PM
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?You do realize it's already a crime for someone to hunt while under the influence correct? Your whole "new crime" thing doesn't fly. It's not as if I can go hunting while drunk today, but couldn't if this bill passes.
"All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given his implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination). This is largely because in the United States, driving is considered a privilege rather than a right,
The courts have also determined that little children waiting to get on a plane can have their genitals rubbed by strangers. Now the courts are trying to say its ok for the gov. to watch your kids webcam while they sleep and read and track everyones private mail and phone calls. Dosent make it OK or right, even if some spoiled idiot cokehead did announce a state of emergency 13 years ago.
Post by: snarkybull on August 19, 2014, 10:25:27 PM
I have been taught repeatedly that leo's will fabricate to secure convictions on stupid little things like speeding tickets. You and I know darned well these same leo's are driving the same speed in their personal vehicles. Yet they give you the high moral ground speech about how you need to slow down. Lies. My opinion of leo's has been soured. I do not believe they are on my side anymore. If they were really interested in public safety then m44m layed it down straight:
Maybe try being a good public servant and offer the guy a cup of coffee and a ride home
Give the dude a wrath-of-mom type speech and a guilt trip and warning while driving him to home/camp.
If safety and prevention was really the deal, this bill would read more like this:
If subject refuses a breathalizer, the weapon will be jailed overnight.
Post by: stuckalot on August 19, 2014, 10:32:32 PM
WA law states if you are boating you have given implied consent to tests
This bill would follow the above, and state if you are hunting you have given implied consent to tests"
How long will it be before the state determines that simply for the right to breath their air you have given implied consent to whatever tests and monitoring they deem appropriate?
The Feds have already said that anyone breathing can be compelled to purchase a product or face a fine/tax! i.e. Obamacare!
Our liberty is vanishing before our eyes for the false promises of security, equality and fairness.
Post by: KFhunter on August 19, 2014, 11:17:22 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 20, 2014, 09:02:38 AM
That's EXACTLY how it's done with the mentally ill or disturbed in this state! Having personal experience trying to get a loved one treated seems impossible unless they are a danger to themselves or others. which is usually NEVER known until AFTER the act. How about the legislature take care of a REAL problem.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. :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 20, 2014, 09:12:05 AM
Or the person could be intelligent enough to not partake in activities that could impair themselves while hunting, and not cause themselves further harm or those around them harm :dunno: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. :dunno: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. :twocents:
Does the department have statistics to exhibit the need for such a law? And they are?
Post by: flatbkman on August 20, 2014, 10:29:27 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 20, 2014, 10:35:15 AM
So currently the legal limit to drive is .08 unless you have a CDL then the limit is .04. Will the same limits be used when out hunting? Also currently MADD is trying to get the overall limit to .04, will the state then change their limit to match? What happens if the limit gets changed to .02 or even .00, especially since when you were sitting around the fire pit the night before having a few and get checked in the morning?The limit to drive is .08, but you can also get arrested for DUI for anything under .08. This legislation doesn't include a specific BAC level, the same goes for the current law for boating under the influence.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 20, 2014, 10:43:10 AM
Post by: Curly on August 20, 2014, 10:47:54 AM
Bigtex just stated why one should take the breathalizer and do nothing else
:yeah:
Also why my personal limit is 1 beer when I get behind the wheel (boat or vehicle). Too risky to try to push it.
Post by: bigtex on August 21, 2014, 08:33:49 AM
Bigtex just stated why one should take the breathalizer and do nothing else And still waiting for those statsIt's what every lawyer says as well. If you want stats you can file for a PDR from WDFW. I don't have every statistical number in my head :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 21, 2014, 08:49:05 AM
Post by: csaaphill on August 23, 2014, 10:08:06 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 23, 2014, 10:15:24 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on August 24, 2014, 10:33:09 AM
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? :dunno:
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.
Many, many years ago in Texas, I went out with a couple buddies to have a few beers. I had been working a ton of hours and after 1 beer on a hot day I couldn't stay awake. I took a short nap in the car which turned into about a 4 hr nap. My buddies had been drinking and got pulled over. I got arrested for public intoxication because the LEO said I had slurred speech when he woke me up. 1 beer 4-5 hrs earlier??? I ended up with the same fines and a nite in jail as my buddies. Asumptions were made with no tests done.
.08 is too strict. .1 was just fine as it was for years but LEO hardly ever enforced it untill MADD was organized. .08 was a stupid move to pacify MADD, nothing more.
We've got a ton of laws already on the books - how about enforcing them.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 24, 2014, 10:40:08 AM
So currently the legal limit to drive is .08 unless you have a CDL then the limit is .04.
And are operating a commercial vehicle where a CDL is required. If you are driving your car, the 0.08 limit applies
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 24, 2014, 10:56:10 AM
Many, many years ago in Texas, I went out with a couple buddies to have a few beers. I had been working a ton of hours and after 1 beer on a hot day I couldn't stay awake. I took a short nap in the car which turned into about a 4 hr nap. My buddies had been drinking and got pulled over. I got arrested for public intoxication because the LEO said I had slurred speech when he woke me up. 1 beer 4-5 hrs earlier??? I ended up with the same fines and a nite in jail as my buddies. Asumptions were made with no tests done.
I don't think the problem was so much the .08 DUI law, but more of a stupid cop enforcing a stupid law, followed by your stupid lawyer