SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Am I an 'operator' at anchor?

10K views 84 replies 42 participants last post by  hellosailor 
#1 · (Edited)
Ok, first off, regular common sense should probably suffice. Just wondering though, if I am at anchor on a reservoir for the evening can I have a few beers without worry of a 'BUI?' I have looked at a few boards, and the answer seems largely to be a yes-I can get cited. However, if the waterway I am on crosses state lines, or runs to the ocean it becomes a navigable waterway and hence maritime law takes over which seems to say at anchor I am at my port of call, thus the equivalent of my home for the evening and thus ok.

I understand that it is unwise to boat and booze it, and also that there may be an odd event that causes my anchor to need tended to.

It is not a big deal to me, I just like sleeping on the boat, but it seems a bit much for me to have to concern myself with getting in trouble for getting a little tipsy with the wife down below when anchored for the evening.

Any thoughts?

Q
PS. I am in CA if anyone knows anything state specific. tnx
 
#2 ·
A very interesting question, especially for full time liveaboards.
Every once in a while, my girlfriend and I will get totally plastered at anchor (we are on our anchor about 11 months a year with a month on our mooring), and I've no doubt we'd be able to handle any situation that arose, even if we couldn't pass a sobriety test.
 
#3 ·
It depends. Those resevoir areas have cops out looking solely for BUI's. So yeah, you'd probably get in trouble.In the Key's you'd be all right. In Honduras, I sail up to the dock with a bar at it. Drink rum and beer, and sail off the dock with a drink in my hand, and every body compliments me on me captaining skills, never even noticing the drinking.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Most states usually are consistent with DUI laws ... you dont have to be 'driving' in the vehicle just be the 'operator' and be 'inside or on' and/or 'direct contact capable' of driving at a BAC of greater than the 0.08% limit. This includes horses, riding lawnmowers, probably even roller skates and 'pogo sticks' .... anything that can be construed as a 'vehicle'.

So, if youre above the 0.08% and inside the boat, on the boat and are 'the operator' even if the boat (car/horse/lawnmower/truck,etc) isnt 'moving' ... in most venues you're DUI/BUI.

Hint: if youre above 0.08% and dont want the DUI hassle, get the hell out of or off of the 'vehicle' .... and then clearly 'dont remember' if you were the operator nor allow 'anyone' else who was in/on that vehicle to 'remember' either.
 
#5 ·
Well, maritime law doesn't necessarily supplant state law, particularly on the criminal side of things.

And I know the Coast Guard takes the position with commercial vessels that being made fast to a dock, or sitting at an anchorage doesn't exempt the master from federal charges for being drunk while "in charge of a vessel". The theory here is that one might have to get underway at any time if there's a change of circumstances or an emergency.
 
#7 ·
Well, maritime law doesn't necessarily supplant state law, particularly on the criminal side of things.

And I know the Coast Guard takes the position with commercial vessels that being made fast to a dock, or sitting at an anchorage doesn't exempt the master from federal charges for being drunk while "in charge of a vessel". The theory here is that one might have to get underway at any time if there's a change of circumstances or an emergency.
I don't know the law or have any first hand experience with precedent in this area...but if cited for BUI when at anchor I would get a lawyer and fight the charges.

It doesn't pass the commons sense test to me that one can be cited for BUI while anchored when - while anchored - one could have easily taken the dinghy to the beach and not been on board when the LEO arrived at the boat and - I guess - not be cited for BUI.

It also doesn't pass the common sense test to be cited for BUI while anchored but not be cited when alongside in a marina...or tied to a mooring ball. Could I be cited for being drunk in the cockpit while tied in my slip but perhaps not be in violation if I am standing on the finger pier next to the boat?

I have never seen LEOs surround the holiday weekend raft ups with citation pad in hand although surely they know - like the rest of living and breathing society - that the majority of the of-age crews are likely a bit deep into their cups.

nola: Re CG "takes the position" - by what authority? CG can't simply take a position independent of law or regulation. What regulation is cited in taking the position that a master of a commercial vessel must exercise sobriety at all times?

What if the ship is in dry dock? Steam powered and in cold iron conditions? Not ready for sea due to crew leave? Is at anchor but has a system fault that prevents getting underway safely?

When I consider all the irrational actions by persons of authority in schools and LE agencies that have been highlighted in the media in the past couple of years I shouldn't be surprised that the CG and marine police have gone off the deep end regarding BUI.

All it takes is a Little Napoleon or Mayor Bloomberg ego on the LE vessel to make a wonderful day on the water become frustrating.
 
#6 ·
Under my state's law, you may not "operate" a vessel while under the influence, and operate "means to navigate or otherwise use a motorboat or vessel."

I would say that being at anchor is not "navigating" but it could be construed as "using" a vessel (the definition of vessel includes sailboats). It would take a court to ultimately determine that issue, and it doesn't appear to have been resolved in our courts.

Can't you get a DUI if you're sitting in your car, drunk, with the keys in the ignition? Or is that only if it's apparent that you had been or were about to drive?
 
#8 ·
Hello,

In New York State a vessel at anchor is not being operated.

This is taken directly from the law:

§ 49-a. Operation of a vessel while under the influence of alcohol or
drugs. 1. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
(a) The term "vessel" shall be every description of watercraft or
other artificial contrivance propelled in whole or in part by mechanical
power and, which is used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation over water, and which is underway and not at anchor or
made fast to the shore or ground.

Barry
 
#9 ·
(a) The term "vessel" shall be every description of watercraft or
other artificial contrivance propelled in whole or in part by mechanical
power and, which is used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation over water, and which is underway and not at anchor or
made fast to the shore or ground.
I think you can sail $hit-faced in NY.
 
#12 ·
huh. so CA boating law states an "operator means the person on board who is steering the vessel while underway" (same as operate) and "underway means all times except when the motorboat, sailboat, or vessel is anchored, moored or aground."

However, I imagine they can do whatever they want, as "Use means operate, navigate or employ" and they don't say what 'employ' means. So I imagine even if not operating it I am 'employing' it so am 'using' it so am operating it....BLAH BLAH BLAH


When did our rules get so convoluted that they are barely decipherable (if at all) and we are just towing the line spending tons of dough to have them turn out more drivel?
 
#20 ·
huh. so CA boating law states an "operator means the person on board who is steering the vessel while underway" (same as operate) and "underway means all times except when the motorboat, sailboat, or vessel is anchored, moored or aground."
Seems prety clear and easy to understand to me.
If you are anchored, you are not underway, therefore when anchored there is no operator, therefore no issue...
right up until you cease being anchored, and the operator gets the boat underway.
In other words, just as in all things sailing related, commonsense and prudence apply.

Think of it like reefing. if you think you need to reef, you should. if you think you are in any way, even remotely, unable to operate your boat without blowing over, then stay anchored.
if you aren't able to make this decision prudently, or if you attract the attention of the watercops even while anchored, then you get what you deserve.
something tells me you are smarter than that.
 
#15 · (Edited)
Fryewe,

When I said CG "takes the position" that drunk captains are "operators", it comes from the federal "Negligent and Reckless operation of a Vessel" statute. and the federal judges have "accepted" that position over the years. Seen it here in the maritime industry locally here.

But they don't go looking for you. Arrests arise from complaints from ship pilots when capt smells like a brewery such that pilot does not get docked ship underway but calls the Coast Guard. So I don't see the LEO overreach that some may, at least in the river cases. You don't want the capt ordering the pilot to "take her out, Mr. Pilot" when capt is dead drunk. It's tricky enough on the Big Muddy already without that.

Complaints when in drydock? Unlikely to the point of being zero. Laid up afloat? If crew required in case of breakaway, then maybe. But again, where's the complaint going to come from? Either a river pilot, or after a casualty where master was in fact potted..

the "I'm home" argument I'm not willing to get into.
 
#16 ·
You can always be charged under the federal law -- so the state law should be viewed as possibly worse (harsher) but not as a lower burden. I have zero confidence that "at anchor" excepts you from the BUI laws in most places (I appreciate the state laws quoted above). In PA DUI is "operation and control" of the vehicle. Begin by recognizing that that law has been applied to bicycles! Next note that "operation and control" has been interpreted to mean operation OR control. So think: you could drive the car" not "you did drive the car". With that in mind, and the same courts interpreting the law, I figure there is no way you are immune at anchor.
.02 (and certainly not legal advice)
BS
 
#17 ·
USCG and US commercial vessels are a horse of a different color. The US requires all US flagged ships to be dry. No crew may poses or imbibe alcoholic beverages, whether on duty or not, while aboard, period.
Unlike the British merchant and military vessels which all have a "pub" aboard for recreation off duty. Hooray for a country that treats it's adults as responsible citizens.
Where's my daily ration of grog, sir?
 
#18 ·
Are you sure that the Jones Act also bans alcohol on US flagged ships? (never heard of that one before). The USN is in fact, dry. Trivia Question: Does anyone here know when alcohol was banned on USN ships? Who banned it? And what American slang was the result of it?
 
#19 ·
In Canada, at anchor, you are under no legal obligation to open the hatch if a cop comes. A friend was arrested by mounties for impaired driving while sitting in a restaurant, because she ' might drive." Several subsequent severe beatings by mounties were given ,to dicourage her from pleading not guilty.
 
#21 ·
Uhm... show me the regs, brent, because my understanding of canadian coastie policy is a boarding is a boarding, whether it is for a light check, a gear check, or a straw-blow. Sure, you don't have to "open the hatch" you just have to accept that you may be impounded, towed, or otherwise detained, since a failure to allow boarding is an offense in and of itself that also is probable cause for a warrant to be issued.
A drunk friend in a bar arrsted by the RCMP and a boarding of a boat by state cops or coast guard or game wardens are apples and oranges, brent, as you should know, being a lifelong liveaboard.
 
#22 ·
Here in Connecticut, moored, anchored or docked vessels are not being 'operated'. Here's a snip from the CT Statutes Sec. 15-133, Rules for safe operation:

(d) No person shall operate a vessel: (1) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (2) while such person has an elevated blood alcohol content. For the purposes of this section and sections 15-140l and 15-140n, "elevated blood alcohol content" means: (A) A ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is eight-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight, or (B) if such person is under twenty-one years of age, a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is two-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight. For the purposes of this section and sections 15-132a, 15-140l, 15-140n, 15-140o and 15-140q, "operate" means that the vessel is underway or aground and not moored, anchored or docked.

Bill
 
#23 ·
I am not a lawyer, but in CA, at least for road vehicles, a DUI requires (among other things) that the operator both cause the vehicle to move, and that the vehicle does move. They always say 'however slightly' although I don't know if this is statutory or jurisprudence. The boat definitely moves at anchor, but it seems most likely that the operator (if there is one) is not actually causing the boat to move, from a legal standpoint.

As a practical matter, the state law always seems interested in who is at the wheel or tiller, and my understanding is that no one else matters in the slightest, even if they say they're the "captain" or anything similar.

On the other hand, I've heard stories of crappy cops who give people a hard time about stuff even though it's probably not actually illegal. So the best thing might be to just ask cops in the relevant jurisdiction (by anonymous telephone call) whether they would have a problem with this.
 
#25 ·
What a coincidence, I was just having a conversation on this topic with my local harbormaster last night at the pub. In RI at anchor you are not considered to be "operating" a vessel.
 
#27 ·
I think you guys are being short sited and while I know the world drinks, I don't, it doesn't seem prudent while on a boat. Any number things could happen that could require quick thinking and fast action and being 3 sheets to the wind just may cost you your life. In my opinion, and it's only that, at anchor should be just like operating the boat. Since some immediate action could take place at any moment.

Remember in some states you can be arrested for public drunkenness and I sure being on your boat is public drunkenness.

Keep this in mind, this is a litigious society. CG/Cops approach your boat and your drunk, but at anchor and they say be careful and do not operate the boat or you will be arrested. An hour later you fall overboard, hit your head and drown. Your family will be suing the CG/Cops before you are even in the ground saying "how could you leave a drunk man on a boat"...
 
#28 ·
Hey! I got an awnser from the state in under 24 hrs after I asked them the question (the CA Dept of Boating and Waterways)


Mr. McColly



You must be underway and operating a vessel to be charged with BUI. If you are anchored, moored or tied up at a marina you cannot be charged with BUI.



Sincerely



Associate Boating Administrator

Enforcement Unit
 
#29 ·
There's an interesting undercurrent that runs through this and other threads on this topic -- distrust of law enforcement.

Most people on this board are law abiding citizens who've never committed a serious crime. Yet many posters are leery of law enforcement.

This was not always the case. I grew up in a town where I knew all the cops. When I got a little older I'd gone to school with a lot of them and occasionally watched football with a bunch of them. But I've noticed a VERY different attitude among younger cops and even the older guys seem more insulated. The times I've brushed up against law enforcement recently have left me feeling distrustful as well.

Unwarranted harassment doesn't seem to be a rare story anymore, whether it's the potty police in Florida, harassment on the Hudson or running a gauntlet of traffic cops on the drive to your boat.

It used to only be people on the fringes distrusted the police. How did this become acceptable behavior?
 
#38 · (Edited)
There's an interesting undercurrent that runs through this and other threads on this topic -- distrust of law enforcement.

Most people on this board are law abiding citizens who've never committed a serious crime. Yet many posters are leery of law enforcement.

This was not always the case. I grew up in a town where I knew all the cops. When I got a little older I'd gone to school with a lot of them and occasionally watched football with a bunch of them. But I've noticed a VERY different attitude among younger cops and even the older guys seem more insulated. The times I've brushed up against law enforcement recently have left me feeling distrustful as well.

Unwarranted harassment doesn't seem to be a rare story anymore, whether it's the potty police in Florida, harassment on the Hudson or running a gauntlet of traffic cops on the drive to your boat.

It used to only be people on the fringes distrusted the police. How did this become acceptable behavior?
Probable reason for this is that law enforcement has gradually changed into a valuable source of revenue enhancement, especially with municipalities now operating with strategic operating deficits. The examples are: 'traffic ticket blitzes', reduction of 'grace' mph over the speed limit, red light cameras, etc. etc. etc. Its not the LEOs causing all this, its their 'employers'.
The root answer is that increasingly most municipalities consider citizens nothing more than an economic 'prey species'.

My stock answer to a LEO making the claim "that Im just doing my job" is that "you know officer, thats exactly what many of the Nazi Camp guards also stated .... as they were marched up the steps of the gallows". :)
 
#31 · (Edited)
Alcohol banned by General order 99 by Sec of Navy Joesph Daniels June 1 1914. Hence the slang for coffee 'Cup o Joe'

oh, I googled, was that cheating?
then it appears they had to pass a bunch of other regs against bootlegging. lol. shutting down the officers wine mess wasnt enough...

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq32-1.htm
 
#32 ·
Alcohol in the Navy

1797 On 1 July, daily liquor ration set at "one half pint of distilled spirits."

1914 General Order 99, issued by Josephus Daniels on 1 June, strictly prohibited "the use or introduction for drinking purposes of alcoholic liquors on board any naval vessel, or within any navy yard or station," to take effect on 1 July 1914, thus putting an end to the officers' wine mess.

That doesn't answer the slang question though...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top