A car is parked on the side of a highway with the internal light on and its occupants in a heated discussion of some sort. A police officer appears at the driver's side to check on the situation and make sure they do not need help. After being assured by both driver and passenger that they are fine and in no need of help, the officer smells what he believes to be alcohol on the driver's breath, and requests that he exit the vehicle for the purposes of a field sobriety test. Is this test respectful of the driver's constitutional rights? Is this test a warranted attempt to protect all the other vehicles on the road?

An experienced lawyer would tell you that according to the New Jersey courts, the oral aroma or odor of alcohol alone is not sufficient to sustain the probable cause necessary for questioning and sobriety testing. The New Jersey Appellate Division, in State v. Hawkins, A-7400-97T5F (1999), held that the smell of alcohol on an individual's breath is insufficient to provide probable cause for the officer's belief that the driver was operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol in the absence of any untoward driving or other indication of insobriety. In the Hawkins case, the defendant was stopped for a community caretaking reason when the officer heard a scream emit from the vehicle. There was no evidence of unsafe or illegal operation of the car. The only indication to the officer that the defendant had consumed alcohol that evening was the odor on his breath.

The New Jersey Appellate Division again addressed this issue in State v. Jones, 326 N.J.Super. 234, 245-6 (App.Div. 1999), stating that, "The nervousness of the driver, considering the fact of the stop itself, along with his consumption of alcohol, is expected. The mere smell of alcohol and admission of consumption may not, by itself, warrant a sobriety test...However, justification of the search under these facts would have the effect of permitting a search...of every motor vehicle which is stopped for a minor motor vehicle violation, where the driver admits to having consumed one bottle of beer. Such a search goes beyond the bounds permitted and does not pass constitutional muster." In the Jones case, the driver was stopped by the police officer for failing to use a traffic signal when changing lanes on the New Jersey Turnpike. After the vehicle was stopped and the officer was speaking to the driver, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol on the driver's breath.

So not only must the police officer witness actual operation of a vehicle, he must witness a more than minor moving violation just prior to pulling you over, in order to be paired with detection of alcoholic breathe to create sufficient probable cause for a field sobriety test. Failing to signal before a lane change is too minor. What exactly constitutes a sufficiently serious moving violation for a police officer to legally request to administer a field sobriety test to a driver? Must it be obviously erratic and unsafe driving? What is clear is that alcohol on your breath is not enough. And that passes the sniff test. Reasonably, three sips of a beer could make your breath smell like alcohol, and simultaneously, you might have 6 beers in an hour, chew a couple of Altoids and not emit any oral alcoholic odor. What constitutes a serious enough moving traffic violation to make coincidental alcoholic breath sufficient probable cause to request a field sobriety test is a different legal question for a different post. Either question should be considered by a skilled attorney when defending any DUI/DWI charges, and should be contacted as soon as possible following such an incident.