In it’s ruling, the Court said that officers in Massachusetts will be able to offer opinions about a driver’s level of intoxication based on the alcohol they consumed, but that they will not be able to weigh in on whether the person’s intoxication impaired his or her ability to safely operate a vehicle. The majority also decided that police officers could safely discuss what they observed about a driver’s behavior and physical appearance. This means that things such as bloodshot eyes, slurred words or the smell of alcohol can all continue to be brought forward to the jury.
Criminal law experts say that the decision is an important one in that it draws a bright line for future trials about what an office can and cannot say to jurors. Criminal defense attorneys say that the ruling is overdue in that it makes the obvious point that officers should provide facts to the jury, not opinions. Issues such as whether someone was impaired while driving are for the jury to decide and should not be prejudiced by the beliefs of the arresting officer.
Many say that the case brings drunk driving into line with existing rules that prevent officers from testifying at drugs trials about whether a defendant intended to distribute drugs. Such questions are clearly beyond the scope of an officer’s knowledge and rightly excluded from testimony
Source: “Massachusetts high court restricts police testimony in drunken driving cases,” by Nathan Mayberg, published at BerkshireEagle.com.