New Washington State BUI law

C

colobear

New member
Just FYI: There is a new BUI law in effect this weekend. Here is a description.

"Washington boaters could face fines of up to $5,000 and almost a year in jail for operating vessels while impaired, under a new law taking effect this weekend.

The law, which takes effect this Sunday, July 28, is aimed at improving boating safety in Washington waters and making it easier for law enforcement officers to arrest impaired boaters. Under the law:

A BUI conviction becomes a gross demeanor punishable by up to a $5,000 fine and/or 364 days in jail.
Officers with probable cause can ask a boat operator to submit to a breathalyzer test. If the operator refuses to take the test, he/she will be issued a class 1 civil infraction.
The maximum penalty for refusal to take a breathalyzer test will be $1,000; however a public safety and education assessment under state law adds 105 percent to the penalty, so the total fine could be up to $2,050.
A boat operator’s refusal cannot be used as evidence in a subsequent criminal trial.
Marijuana references relevant to Initiative 502, which legalized recreational use of pot, are applicable. The legal limit for boating under the influence of marijuana is 5 nanograms per milliliter.

Additionally, the law requires rental boats to be outfitted with minimum safety equipment required for other boats, such as life jackets, fire extinguishers and signaling devices. The law clarifies what those requirements are for rented vessels and prohibits boat rental companies from charging a separate fee for providing the equipment.

The most common type of boating accident in Washington state is a boat collision — either with another vessel or a fixed object, according to the state Parks & Recreation Commission. The most common cause of those accidents is operator inattention or a related violation of boating rules of the road.

Under the law, an office investigating a boating accident can now issue a citation to the boater at fault even if the officer did not witness the accident. Officers would typically make that determination during the course of an investigation as they do with accidents on land."
 
Now if they'd included an outright ban on a person who has been convicted of impaired boating from operating a boat for 5 years from the time of the conviction, I'd be real happy. Good for Washington state tightening things up.
 
Potter--how about Lake Powell? Lots of DUI up there in the summer, and virtually no law enforcement!

This is an interesting development. I am opposed to running a boat under the influence of either alcohol or a drug. However the marijuana is going to be very controversial. Marijuana lasts for a long time in the body. (I ran a drug testing program at a university, and we found evidence of TCH over a month after the last use of Marijuana. There is no set level for intoxication with TCH--and since there is "tolerance" to use of the drug, there may be some who are not impaired at the 5 nanogram level. (Nevada uses 2 nanogram/ml for driving a vehicle).

Also the fines and jail time have greatly increased with this new law from what they were in Wa in the past.

My general impression was that BUI was much less in Washington than what we have in Florida. It will be interesting to see some of the challanges of this law.
 
MJ complicates the whole matter. I guess I'm a zero tolerance kind of guy. My cousin had two children, both in their teens, killed by a drunk truck driver, driving a beer truck, no less. It is so easy simply to not use the booze when you are the captain. After the sun goes down and the anchors are out, then the captain can let his or her hair down a bit.

I've seen many drunks at the helm on Lake Powell. Most were young men, but there have also been a lot of people old enough to know better. My father in law lived in the over-the-limit world most of his life and seemed to be able to drive just fine. I guess the body can accommodate after years of a base level of alcohol in the blood, but there is no way to sort out the alcohol tolerance level of a person in the law enforcement environment.

Unfortunately, now we have the whole world of Rx drug abuse to worry about in terms of impairment. Some people are even impaired using proper dosages of certain drugs.

The proportion of accidents, road or water that are due to Rx drugs or even to MJ is microscopic compared to beer and hard booze though. So, enforcement needs to go after that low hanging fruit at least. If you injure or kill due to BUI, permanent ban from a states waterways should also be considered. No "first offence leniency" in the case of injury or death.
 
The problem with banning a person from the waterway is just like the problem with taking away the driver's license. Those who are likely to get into this type of "fix" in the first place are likely to just go ahead and drive/boat with out a license. We see several a week where someone is killed by a person with a history of DUI who had lost their license!

Yep, have the beer when at anchor--but then never too much, because emergencies can arise on the water. Last time we were at Powell, there were two deaths in the same area both involving alcohol and boating.
 
What is the WA state definition of "for operating vessels while impaired"? It could mean any time the boat is not tied to a dock.

If I'm anchored out somewhere and having a drink or two, is that "operating a vessel"?

What about open containers? In a lot of states if you have a bottle with the seal broken (or a six pack with one or more missing) in the operator's compartment of a motor vehicle (i.e. accessible to the operator) you can be busted.
 
I can't imagine you'd get a BUI at anchor. The possible exception would be if you were obviously wasted and causing other problems. But an anchored boat is, by definition, not underway, at least as far as I understand.

The bigger risk is that something goes wrong when at anchor. Perhaps the wind comes up and you start dragging, or another boat anchors too close. Then you could be forced to move the boat...

As far as I know there aren't any open container rules on a boat in WA state.

My impression is that BUI is a bigger issue on the freshwater lakes in WA than the saltwater. Seafair, in particular, draws a lot of drunk people to Lake Washington and the police make many BUI arrests.
 
What is the WA state definition of "for operating vessels while impaired"?
Click to expand...

All RCW's will have a "definition" section which pertains to those laws. In this case RCW 79A.60.010 which defines "operate" as follows:

(16) "Operate" means to steer, direct, or otherwise have physical control of a vessel that is underway.
Click to expand...

(17) "Operator" means an individual who steers, directs, or otherwise has physical control of a vessel that is underway or exercises actual authority to control the person at the helm.
Click to expand...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.60.010

The new law(s) are meant to clarify certain discrepancies in the old law. Like noted, they bring boating laws more in line w/ auto accidents and DUI law. LIke I tell people it's quite easy to not cross the law. If you want to drink, don't drive and vice versa.

As far as I know there aren't any open container rules on a boat in WA state.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
I read that there has been an uptick in washington fatalities in the last 2 years. I wonder if that is a result of simply more boaters, or something else.
 
colobear":1smzmo3g said:
Marijuana references relevant to Initiative 502, which legalized recreational use of pot, are applicable. The legal limit for boating under the influence of marijuana is 5 nanograms per milliliter.
Click to expand...

What does this mean to the lay-person? I assume it is a level of intoxication such as blood-alcohol level of 0.08. Are their field sobriety tests for Marijuana?
 
Let me approach this from the prospective of an MD who has run a drug testing program in athletes where we had zero tolerance. The new laws in several states are going to have to be tested in courts--and probably will go all of the way to the supreme court. I have never used marijuana, so I cannot speak from personal experience.

Marijuana is different than alcohol in its metabolism. Alcohol does have some very little amount of tolerance. The amount of alcohol in the blood generally is equal to the degree of impairment. Granted that in some severe chronic alcoholics, they may be less impaired at a specific level than the average person. However this is not taken into account.

Studies (mostly in Europe and Australia) show that a 5 nanogram/ml level of TCH (the most commonly measured metabolite of smoking Marijuana) is approximately equal to the common 0.08% by volume which is the level for alcohol intoxication.

A good analysis of the issue is published by the National Highway Safety Administration. This seems to be the least tainted by persons advocating for marijuana use.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

The problem comes with "tolerance". Some people use increasingly larger amounts of any drug to achieve the same effect. The legal use of Medical Marijuana is an example, where for chronic pain from cancer, a patient may use large doses of Marijuana and have minimal clinical impairment. The TCH is bound to fat cells rapidly when smoked, and will be released over a long period of time. This is where the major issue will have to be sorted out by the legal community.

A LEO will have to make a clinical determination at the time of intervention (traffic stop, after an accident, arrest etc) and see if he or she suspects the use of drugs. There may also be evidence found at the scene which raises suspicion. Then blood will be drawn. There will be a correlation between the time of the incident and when blood is drawn--again a legal challenge possibility. With alcohol it is easier. The breath is tested at the scene. Not so easy with marijuana, where blood must be drawn.

As for the field sobriety tests, I will leave that to LEO to explain: But here are the symptoms and effects from the above paper--and are similar to what I have observed in persons who are intoxicated by THC.

In the NHTSA paper "Marinol" is mentioned. It is a synthetic Cannabis which may be prescribed and the metabolites will be the same a smoked marijuana.

"Effects: Pharmacological effects of marijuana vary with dose, route of administration, experience of user, vulnerability to psychoactive effects, and setting of use.

Psychological: At recreational doses, effects include relaxation, euphoria, relaxed inhibitions, sense of well-being, disorientation, altered time and space perception, lack of concentration, impaired learning and memory, alterations in thought formation and expression, drowsiness, sedation, mood changes such as panic reactions and paranoia, and a more vivid sense of taste, sight, smell, and hearing. Stronger doses intensify reactions and may cause fluctuating emotions, flights of fragmentary thoughts with disturbed associations, a dulling of attention despite an illusion of heightened insight, image distortion, and psychosis.

Physiological: The most frequent effects include increased heart rate, reddening of the eyes, dry mouth and throat, increased appetite, and vasodilatation."


"Performance Effects: The short term effects of marijuana use include problems with memory and learning, distorted perception, difficultly in thinking and problem-solving, and loss of coordination. Heavy users may have increased difficulty sustaining attention, shifting attention to meet the demands of changes in the environment, and in registering, processing and using information. In general, laboratory performance studies indicate that sensory functions are not highly impaired, but perceptual functions are significantly affected. The ability to concentrate and maintain attention are decreased during marijuana use, and impairment of hand-eye coordination is dose-related over a wide range of dosages.Impairment in retention time and tracking, subjective sleepiness, distortion of time and distance, vigilance, and loss of coordination in divided attention tasks have been reported. Note however, that subjects can often “pull themselves together” to concentrate on simple tasks for brief periods of time. Significant performance impairments are usually observed for at least 1-2 hours following marijuana use, and residual effects have been reported up to 24 hours.

Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own.
"

You will find many internet links which claim that there is no or minimal effect of the use of marijuana on driving. These are not substantiated by the better studies done over a length of time. However, there are many factors as I noted above which will enter into the impairment if any is present.
 
Cogent analysis, Thataway, as usual. An added element is that often alcohol and marijuana are on board at the same time ... meaning the person recently consumed both.

I have consumed marijuana (for the record, it was 40 years ago, and never since), and a couple beers the same evening. Definitely the combination was massively more effective in impairing me than either would have been separately. Not sure how LE might attack this in the field, once an apparently impaired driver has been pulled over. Driver might pass both the breathalyzer and the THC blood test, but still be so impaired he is a hazard.

I am very pleased to see serious efforts towards removing impaired drivers from the road, as well as impaired skippers from the water.
 
Dave,
I think a lot will boil down to the judgement of LEO as they do an assessment. We don't have legal marijuana in Florida. I do work with our local sheriff's office. If they find someone who they feel is impaired--but there is not a legal reason to arrest or detain, they will call a friend or relative to take that person home. For example a prescription medication--and the person is observed weaving in traffic. Passes all sobriety tests etc.
 
I normally don't put much thought into BUI laws, I don't go boating under the influence, and rarely see many people abusing the laws in saltwater.

Two weeks ago, we stayed at the Port of Skagit marina in LaConner. It was almost dark, and I was minding my own business reading a book at the dinette while Brianna tried to get the baby to fall asleep in the berth.

Next thing I know this great big Bayliner yacht shows up and all hell breaks loose. The skipper is completely hammered, and he's coming in fast to the inside of G dock where we are tied off. He nearly takes off the bow of a multi million dollar moored in the harbor. He tries to turn around and just missed hitting our boat by only a few inches. Im panicked, and have my hook pole out trying to fend this thing off from hitting us. A crowd of scared boat owners formed on the dock hoping to assist or at least prevent disaster. He makes a couple more attempts to dock, nearly missing the very expensive yacht named "the office" by a foot or so. Finally he gets close to an open spot, and his wife is running around on the bow red faced and confused on what to do next. She's yelling "we're Canadian, we've never done this before" to all of us on the dock. They had no fenders or dock lines ready yet, and hadn't thought of that yet. the crowd gave instructions and was able to get him safely tied off. He nearly hit multiple boats including our boat.

This couple had absolutely no clue how close they came to causing serious damage and possibly harming people out there. I am still in shock after witnessing these folks nearly taking out every boat in the guest moorage that evening.
 
I like the law but when testing is involved not all toxicology labs are the same.
Here is the sad story of the State of Indiana tox lab run by the Indiana University School of Medicine and major issues occurred and the State had take over the operation. They found major problems in part of the lab that they did not inspect the rest of the lab

The findings from the audit, provided to The Indianapolis Star, showed errors in about 200 of 2,000 marijuana tests reported to law enforcement as having positive results. That includes about 50 described as "a conscious manipulation of results" by lab workers.


http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... 1102030409

http://search.indystar.com/sp?aff=1103& ... cology+lab
 
I have also been hearing a lot about BUI, so I asked a friend in the Coast Guard. If you are stopped and, as the captain, have an open container, you can be cited for that. You can also be charged with BUI, if you are over .08. The captain can safely drink at anchor.

I like to go out into the Gulf, have a couple of beers, and read while I drift. Drifting is still considered to be under way by the Coast Guard. I guess I'll be drinking a lot more expresso.
 
Sorry in advance for being wonky and nit-picky but I am curious to know how to compare the experience of driving a car and a boat during a suspected DUI specifically as it relates the operator's "right" to refuse a field-BA and request a non-field device or a blood-test.

If pulled over by LE for suspicion of DUI I have heard that it is better to not submit to field-breathalyzer tests (but to do the field sobriety tests) because the field equipment can be poorly calibrated. I have heard that it is better to be arrested and transported to a police station for the breathalyzer or to a hospital for a blood-draw so that the readings are as accurate as possible. I don't recall ever hearing there is a civil-fine for agreeing to submit to field-sobriety tests and a blood-alcohol test, just refusing the field blood-alcohol test.

Do I get the same choice on the water? If I refuse a water/field based blood-alcohol test and request/agree to a test in a police station or a hospital, will I still be issued a $1000 civil fine? Is this done for drivers of cars who refuse?

I can assume I will also be arrested and offered the BA test on land but if i am found to be below the limits will the civil penalty be discarded?

What is the point of the $1000 fine? This appears to be impinging on civil liberates pretty quickly.

I have never been pulled over for suspicion of DUI or BUI so I don't have experience.

Cheers!!
 
johnbenj":ilgpwyfa said:
Sorry in advance for being wonky and nit-picky but I am curious to know how to compare the experience of driving a car and a boat during a suspected DUI specifically as it relates the operator's "right" to refuse a field-BA and request a non-field device or a blood-test.

If pulled over by LE for suspicion of DUI I have heard that it is better to not submit to field-breathalyzer tests (but to do the field sobriety tests) because the field equipment can be poorly calibrated. I have heard that it is better to be arrested and transported to a police station for the breathalyzer or to a hospital for a blood-draw so that the readings are as accurate as possible. I don't recall ever hearing there is a civil-fine for agreeing to submit to field-sobriety tests and a blood-alcohol test, just refusing the field blood-alcohol test.

Do I get the same choice on the water? If I refuse a water/field based blood-alcohol test and request/agree to a test in a police station or a hospital, will I still be issued a $1000 civil fine? Is this done for drivers of cars who refuse?

I can assume I will also be arrested and offered the BA test on land but if i am found to be below the limits will the civil penalty be discarded?

What is the point of the $1000 fine? This appears to be impinging on civil liberates pretty quickly.

I have never been pulled over for suspicion of DUI or BUI so I don't have experience.

Cheers!!
Click to expand...

In the state were I learned to drive you had the option of the field breathalyzer or the blood test. One theory was to opt for the blood test because it could take awhile to get to the hospital and get the blood drawn. Some people thought that your BA might be low enough by that time to be below the limit.

I also know someone who was stopped for suspected DUI. They said "I want a blood test". The cop said "OK, follow me to the hospital." The case was thrown out for obvious reasons.

As for "civil liberties", these have been disappearing rapidly over the last several years.
 
Back
Top