A police officer has pulled over your vehicle to the side of the road. Earlier you went out with friends and had a couple drinks. Or you attended happy hour with co-workers and tossed back a couple of beverages. Now the cop wants to know if you are sober? Do your recreational activities dictate that you will spend the night in jail and face prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI)?
As with so much of law, the answer is “it depends.” It depends on what the officer sees and hears during the course of the vehicle stop.
First, the officer performing a vehicle stop must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred, is taking place, or is about to take place. In other words, law enforcement must have some justification for pulling a car over. This standard is not generally hard for police to satisfy. Suspicion of even a minor traffic offense can provide justification for the stop. Therefore, small infractions such as failure to use a turn signal, a burned-out brake light, or a window tint violation will provide police with sufficient justification to stop a car and investigate the driver.
In some circumstances the traffic offense itself will provide an officer with indication that the driver is possibly operating a car under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants. Lane weaving or erratic operator behavior inside the vehicle cabin can be indicators that the person behind the wheel is impaired.
Sometimes the signs are more subtle which tip off an officer that a driver may be intoxicated. Two of the most commonly used phrases in police reports pertaining to DUI cases are “bloodshot, watery eyes” and “slurred speech.” Another one is “unsteady gait.” Police observing these characteristics on a vehicle operator will investigate further into a driver’s sobriety. The odor of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana smoke coming from the vehicle cabin or off a driver will also justify an officer performing further investigation into the operator’s sobriety. Physical items such as open containers of alcohol inside a car can provide police with reason to investigate for impaired vehicle operation.
Prior to July 1, 2023, Colorado law enforcement generally utilized officer testimony and police reports alone to explain why an officer wanted to investigate a driver for DUI. However, under the state’s relatively new body-worn camera law, law enforcement personnel are supposed to record interactions with the public – including traffic stops. The camera video now serves as an independent witness to show if police were justified in investigating a DUI suspect. While video evidence cannot evaluate a claim that an odor of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana was present, it can certainly reveal the accuracy regarding claims of “slurred speech,” “bloodshot, watery eyes,” or open containers in vehicles.
To summarize: it does not take a tremendous amount of evidence gathered by a police officer to justify checking a driver for DUI. Some random combination of a handful of factors – such as “vehicle weaving, slurred speech, and alcoholic beverage odor” – will provide the necessary reasonable, articulable suspicion for a cop to perform a sobriety investigation.
Have you been involved in a recent traffic stop that involved a cop asking if you were sober? Charged with a DUI? Contact us for a free consultation to discuss your options.
- People v. Johnston, 2018 COA 167, ¶ 17
- People v. Chavez-Barragan, 2016 CO 16, ¶ 10
- See, e.g., Johnston at ¶ 22, and People v. Williams, 192 Colo. 249, 258 n.13
- See, e.g., People v. Maxwell, 2017 CO 46, ¶ 1
- People v. Mathews, 2019 Colo. App. LEXIS 3035, *2
- Schulte v. Colo. Dep’t of Revenue, 2018 COA 140, ¶ 5
- Derock v. Colo. Dep’t of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 2016 Colo. App. LEXIS 2832
- § 24-31-902, C.R.S.
