In the Case of Bowling V

In the case of Bowling v. State, a police officer with the Georgia Department of natural resources observed the defendant operating his motorboat without displaying the proper lighting after dark. The trained officer conducted a safety inspection during which time the defendant, Bowling, began to exhibit some signs of intoxication or at least some signs of alcohol impairment. The officer performed some diagnostic tests designed to discern alcohol impairment, which indicated that the defendant may have been a less safe boat operator because of alcohol consumption. At the trial for driving a boat while under the influence of alcohol, the officer was permitted to give an opinion that the officer believed the defendant, because of his alcohol consumption, was a less safe boat operator and that he was impaired. While the general rule is that only expert witnesses may give opinions, in this case:

A) the officer was properly permitted to offer an opinion concerning alcohol impairment and intoxication of defendant Bowling because lay witnesses commonly form opinions concerning alcohol impairment observed in other human beings.
B) the officer properly gave an opinion at trial based on the officer's status as an expert witness concerning intoxication due to extensive training as a police officer.
C) the officer should not have been permitted to express an opinion concerning alcohol impairment because only expert witnesses may be permitted to render opinions, and lay witnesses must refrain from giving opinions in scientific matters.
D) no opinion concerning lack of sobriety should have been permitted because the officer conducted field sobriety tests on water rather than on land and could have obtained erroneous conclusions.