In almost every Massachusetts DUI / Drunk Driving trial, the officer claims
to detect an odor of alcohol. The object of this line of cross-examination is to
establish that an odor of alcohol may be a sign of consumption, but it not a
sign of impairment.
According to your report, you detected the strong odor of an alcoholic
beverage?
Did you arrest him at that time?
Then apparently these observations where not sufficient to justify a
conclusion that he was under the influence??
Based on the odor that you detected, you could not tell how much alcohol
was consumed, could you?
From the odor you detected, you couldn't tell what he drank?
From the odor you detected, you couldn't tell when he might have consumed
alcohol?
You would agree that the odor of an alcoholic beverage is merely a sign
of consumption?
You would agree that the odor of an alcoholic beverage is not a sign of
impairment, correct?
It’s not illegal to consume an alcoholic beverage?
And it’s not illegal to consume an alcoholic beverage and drive a motor
vehicle, is it?
That is probably why most bars are restaurants that serve alcohol have
parking lots, correct?
And based on the odor that you detected, you did not conclude that the
defendant was impaired for reason of alcohol consumption, did you?
