Reader’s Question:

I’d probably be afraid of risking drinking and driving again after my father was arrested for DUI here in Washington, DC. He told me that the police officer had a probable cause to continue with the investigation and arrest him after because of his bloodshot eyes which according to the officer, an indication that my father had been drinking. Could this officer’s observation be challenged?

Paris

Washington, DC

Aside from the pervasive “odor of alcohol,” perhaps the most common observation a police officer will describe as an indicator of being under the influence of alcohol will be “bloodshot eyes.” It is very unlikely that we encounter a DUI case that at least the two boxes for odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes on the police report are not marked. When a police officer relies heavily on “bloodshot eyes” as the sole basis for continuing the investigation of the person suspected for DUI, the case should be eagerly challenged because even National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has discounted these clues as prejudicial and irrelevant to determining intoxication.

Back in 1997, NHTSA released a report that removes “bloodshot eyes” as an indicator of impairment. The materials provide an outstanding resource for cross-examination of a police officer. Bloodshot eyes may be associated with alcohol consumption but it is also a trait of a lot of shift workers and people who work more than one job and even those who are afflicted by allergies. With that being said, having bloodshot eyes can definitely be challenged on your father’s DUI case in Washington, DC.

Tags: DUI, DUI advice, DUI arrest, DUI lawyer