Court Opinion

ID: 9792018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:22:08.165718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.225492
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
specially concurring.
Although I agree with the lead opinion that Deputy Davis had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while under the influence of intoxicants, I do not agree with its conclusion that a moderate, extremely stale odor of an alcoholic beverage on a motorist’s breath by itself is sufficient, under the circumstances of this case, to give rise to reasonable suspicion. As the dissent points out, it is not unlawful to drink and then drive. There must be some objective evidence that the defendant’s mental and physical faculties are affected by the intoxicant or that he has consumed a sufficient quantity of alcoholic beverage to be in violation of the blood-alcohol limit. Odor on one’s breath implies consumption, not effect. The fact that the odor is moderate does not suggest an effect either, though it may vaguely suggest something about the amount consumed.
The fact that the odor is stale relates to the time of consumption, not quantity or effect.1 However, defendant’s inattentiveness to his non-functioning headlight is some evidence that what he consumed had affected him. As the lead opinion points out, “reasonable suspicion” does not require *324exclusion of other possible reasons for defendant’s inattention. It is the combination of the odor on his breath and his operation of a motor vehicle at night with one headlight out that constitutes reasonable suspicion.