Rafting guide arrested after client drowns

[Explorer Editor]

State Police say a guide for Hudson River Rafting Co. was intoxicated when his client drowned in the Indian River yesterday morning.

Click here to read story and news release.

 

[Puma concolor]

That will be an interesting legal battle to watch. Since the provisions of the NYS Navigation Law define "vessel" as a mechanically propelled boat, the Penal Law charge of Criminally Negligent Homicide is the correct one based on the letter of the law. And yet, it seems he was charged at least in part based on the fact that he was guiding the boat while intoxicated, which is not illegal as the raft falls outside of the scope of the Naviagtion Law. It will be interesting to hear the other circumstances of the accident and to see if the charge sticks.

 

[Maddy]

I think this guy is going down.

The "reply" that has a yellow highlight is most interesting.

 

[Willie]

That will be an interesting legal battle to watch. Since the provisions of the NYS Navigation Law define "vessel" as a mechanically propelled boat, the Penal Law charge of Criminally Negligent Homicide is the correct one based on the letter of the law. And yet, it seems he was charged at least in part based on the fact that he was guiding the boat while intoxicated, which is not illegal as the raft falls outside of the scope of the Naviagtion Law. It will be interesting to hear the other circumstances of the accident and to see if the charge sticks.

Excuse my ignorance, but I don’t understand. What is the significance of whether the intoxicated guide's boat falls outside of the scope of the Naviagtion Law?

 

[Puma concolor]

The significance is that if it had been a motorized boat, then the charge would have been vehicular manslaughter 1st or 2nd based on the specific circumstances in addition to a charge of boating while intoxicated (Navigation Law section 49-a). Either offense would be a higher level felony than criminally negligent homicide, which is very general and makes no mention of intoxication. It is also interesting insofar as there is no way that the NYSP could have asked the guide for a breath/blood sample under the provisions for BWI and would have certainly almost had to obtain a search warrant for a blood sample to determine his BAC if they suspected intoxication.

The greater point is that since it wasn't a mechanically-propelled boat and the charge was criminally negligent homicide, the prosecution will have to demonstrate what the guide specifically did (other than being drunk) that led to the death of the client. The mere fact that he was guiding drunk and a client fell off the raft and drowned isn't enough to prove guilt. There has to be more.

- Law firm of Puma, Puma and Puma

 

[Willie]

Thank you.