Getting a BWI is just like getting a DWI in Texas. One major difference between BWI and DWI defense is the justification for the stop.  Texas law does not require a police officer have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop a boat operating on the waters of Texas, but does so require for an automobile stop.

What is Boating While Intoxicated (BWI)? It’s just what you think it is. If you operate a watercraft while under the influence of alcohol, you can be arrested for boating while intoxicated (BWI). Keep in mind that in a Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) case, a watercraft is any craft that a person can be carried on over water. This even includes things like water skis, but excludes crafts like rowboats because those are propelled entirely by water.

Consider also the possible circumstances of a Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) arrest. Law enforcement officers may board your craft for safety and security reasons. But while they are there, they may smell alcohol on your breath. They may see you or others enjoying a few beers. None of this is illegal, yet that evidence alone may compel them to investigate you for Boating While Intoxicated (BWI).

Now after a day doing what so many others do on vacations, you might find yourself face to face with a Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) charge. After all, the officers might see you with bloodshot eyes. They might notice your red face. However, your eyes may be bloodshot because you forgot your sunglasses. Your face might be red because your sunscreen wore off. Any officer could mistake these as signs of excessive drinking. If so, you may have to submit to a sobriety test. You may be tired from boating and water skiing all day, thus impairing your walking ability. If the officer conducts your test on a crooked pier, the test could be even harder. All these factors could result in an unreasonable Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) arrest.

The situation above is just one Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) scenario, but it highlights just some of the problems that may be encountered in a Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) charge, things that may result in a bogus arrest and conviction. So don’t take on this serious charge alone. A skilled attorney such as myself, who is versed in Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) cases is mandatory. I will find flaws like the ones described above or any of the countless other pitfalls that may make up the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. Consult our office today to discuss your Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) case with a qualified attorney.

Penalties for BWI

In Texas, it is illegal to operate a boat with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher (the same as that for a DWI). Texas law establishes stiff penalties for boating while intoxicated (BWI) including:

First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 days

Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one year

Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

If you are found to be boating while intoxicated in Texas in a vessel that has an engine over 50 horsepower, they will try to automatically suspend your license.
 

Texas Penal Code § 49.06 makes it unlawful for a person to operate a boat while intoxicated.  The statute reads:

“49.06. Boating while intoxicated.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a watercraft.

(b) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, with a minimum term of confinement of 72 hours.”

 Texas Penal Code § 49.09 is the enhancement statute for BWI violations.  It reads:

 “§49.09 authorizes the enhancement of boating while intoxicated to felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the person has previously been convicted:

(1)  one time of an offense under Section 49.08 or an offense under the laws of another state if the offense contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under Section 49.08;  or

(2)  two times of any other offense relating to the operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, operating an aircraft while intoxicated, operating a watercraft while intoxicated, or operating or assembling an amusement ride while intoxicated.”

In Schenekl v. Texas, CITE,  the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered, for the first time, whether Texas Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 31.124(a) passes constitutional muster under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  The statute requires that boats meet various registration and safety requirements, and permits “an enforcement officer [to] stop and board any vessel subject to this chapter and may inspect the boat to determine compliance with applicable provisions.”  Id.   

In Schenekl the operator of a boat was stopped by a Game Warden after the boat left a marina at night.  The officer claimed to have stopped Schenekl for a routine water safety check.  Though not specifically addressed in the opinion, it is implied that the officer did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant for any law violation.  After losing a motion to suppress argument at the trial court level, the defendant entered a no contest plea and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.  The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court, and the defendant appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

In reviewing the case, the Court of Criminal Appeals first applied prior case holdings that, “[t]he permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of a legitimate governmental interest.”  Id. citing Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).  After reviewing prior decisions on how, and what factors, courts are to balance in considering these cases the Court held that, “the proper balancing test is two-pronged, weighing the State’s interest against the level of intrusion.”  Id.

In applying that balancing test the Court found that the State has a “substantial interest in protecting the health and well-being of its citizens.”  Id. citing Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290, 302-303, 97 S.Ct. 1056, 1064-1065, 51 L.Ed.2d 338 (1977).  In reviewing the level of intrusiveness the Court considered that boats are not bound by established avenues of transport, do not bear license plates or registration stickers, and that fixed checkpoints would be impracticable.  Id.  The Court also found that while the random stopping of automobiles is impermissible, the random stopping of boats is not since boat travel is not a necessary means of transportation within our society.  Id.  Thus, the Court upheld the statute.

If the officer does provide a justification for the stopping of a boat, defense counsel should be vigilant in his questioning to lock the officer into the fact that he did not intend, nor perform, a routine safety inspection as justification for the stop.  Such vigilance is required to preclude reviewing courts to conclude that the officer may have stopped the boat under the routine safety inspection rationale, thus uphold the stop even though it may have been constitutionally deficient. 

Field Sobriety Tests in BWI cases

              BWI cases provide special challenges for law enforcement and defense counsel alike.  Attorneys representing people charged with BWI violations are well advised to apprise themselves of the methodology of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST’s) administered by law enforcement, and retain an expert in SFST’s to review their case.  This section is meant to provide an overview of the issues that may be raised, but is by no means an exhaustive discussion of how these issues may arise.

              Attorney’s should carefully evaluate where the administration of the SFST’s take place.  The original SFST study was validated by Marceline and Burns on a grant from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA).  The study criteria demanded that the tests were administered on a smooth, flat, level surface.  Additionally, while administering the horizontal gaze nystagmus exam, the suspects head is supposed to remain still.  Obviously, both of the cited criteria are jeopardized if the tests are administered while on the water.  If, however, the tests are administered on dry land shortly after the suspect had been boating, defense counsel should explore how long he had been on the water, what his “normal” balance would be under similar circumstances, and investigate the possibility that the suspect was suffering from “sea legs” during the performance of the test.  An expert in this area can assist counsel in preparing an attack to the tests administered in any particular BWI case.  It does not appear that the Court of Criminal Appeals have dealt with the validity of these standardized tests under the stated conditions.  For more information on these tests see the section of this book on the SFST’s

If you are looking for an exceptionally trained and educated BWI, DWI / DUI attorney to aggressively represent you on your DWI case or any criminal matter, call 512.278.0935 (Austin) or 210-DWI-DUDE (210.394.3833) (San Antonio) or contact me by e-mail at jamie@dwidude.com

If I am in trial, my personal assistant Ashley Nichols can assist you.
Click here for an immediate response: ashley@dwidude.com