Were You Arrested for Drunk Boating under Federal Law?

If you were arrested or cited for operating a boat while under the influence of alcohol, a violation of 46 U.S.C. § 2302, the first thing you may wonder is whether you really belong in federal court. 

After all, the Exxon Valdez oil spill case, which involved an oil tanker running aground on a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound, allegedly was due in part in whole or in part on a drunk captain (Captain Hazelwood) who failed to supervise his crew  Captain Hazelwood was prosecuted in state court and acquitted.

Likewise, you may be prosecuted in state court for drunk boating under California Harbor & Navigation Code § 655 and question whether you instead should be in federal court based on the citation or arrest being outside California territorial waters.  For example, do federal admiralty laws apply in state court?

It is also not entirely clear if federal court is the exclusive jurisdiction for a drunk boating offense occurring on federal navigable waters, i.e., the state court may share jurisdiction (concurrent jurisdiction) over the offense as in other crimes.

Two cases seem to provide answers to these questions.  In Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1951) 103 Cal. App. 2d 512, the California Court of Appeal for the First District held that union pickets could be prosecuted for contempt in state court only because their conduct did not involve the negligent operation of a vessel, the type of conduct addressed by 46 U.S.C. § 2302, mentioned above.  This seems to suggest jurisdiction over § 2302 is always in federal court.  The opinion pointed out that the state retains jurisdiction over its territorial waters and may exercise that power for all proper purposes, i.e., those not in conflict with federal law.

The second case is Davis v. U.S. (9th Cir., 1950) 185 F. 2d 938, wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the federal district court had exclusive jurisdiction over cases that arose under the Motorboat Act for cases arising on Lake Tahoe.

On the other hand, 33 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 95.001(a) provides that 46 U.S.C. § 2302 “does not preempt enforcement by a state of its applicable laws and regulations concerning operating a recreational vessel while intoxicated.”  This would seem to preclude any argument that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over drunk boating offenses on navigable waters.  See also People v. Armitage (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 405, fn. 8 (federal, state and local authorities have overlapping jurisdiction).

Assuming one moves beyond the subject matter and personal jurisdiction issues, the federal drunk boating statute states at 46 U.S.C. § 2303(a): “A person operating a vessel in a negligent manner that endangers the life, limb, or property of a person is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000.”

Subsection (b) states “[a] person operating a vessel in a grossly negligent manner that endangers the life, limb, or property of a person commits a class A misdemeanor.

A Class A misdemeanor in federal court generally means a crime that is punishable by more than six months but less than one year in federal custody as well as a fine of up to $1,000.  Pre-sentencing bail is usually available. 

Subsection (c) states that “[a]n individual who is under the influence of alcohol, or a dangerous drug in violation of a law of the United States when operating a vessel, as determined under standards prescribed by the Secretary by regulation (1) is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for a first violation and not more than $5,000 for a subsequent violation; or (2) commits a class A misdemeanor.

Subsection (d) states “[f]or a penalty imposed under this section, the vessel also is liable in rem unless the vessel is (1) owned by a State or a political subdivision of a State; (2) operated principally for governmental purposes; and (3) identified clearly as a vessel of that State or subdivision.