Hypothetical scenario: How would one rebut the false testimony of a police officer who claimed that someone had been drinking because he smelled...

If you had not, in fact, consumed alcohol, especially because of the risk of adverse interactions between alcohol and your medications, then you should have demanded a sobriety test at the moment of the traffic stop. Presumably, the police officer pulled you over because he observed erratic behavior on your part and suspected that the driver of the vehicle being driven was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A police officer can use the...

If you had not, in fact, consumed alcohol, especially because of the risk of adverse interactions between alcohol and your medications, then you should have demanded a sobriety test at the moment of the traffic stop. Presumably, the police officer pulled you over because he observed erratic behavior on your part and suspected that the driver of the vehicle being driven was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A police officer can use the "smell test" to demand further evidence of a potential driving-under-the-influence case, but that further evidence involves some form of sobriety test, usually a series of physical movements on the part of the driver to test that person's coordination, which would be adversely affected by alcohol. Also, the police officer would typically administer a breathalyzer test, which is more fact-based that field sobriety tests that involve demonstrations of the driver's coordination. A driver's inability to execute a field sobriety test involving a series of physical movements is not absolute proof of guilt; on the contrary, many suspects can legitimately claim that their coordination is impaired by virtue of some form of physical disability, such as those that involve muscular movements. A breathalyzer test, however, is scientific evidence of the presence of alcohol in a driver's system. Your question did not specify whether any of these tests were administered, only that the officer claimed to have smelled alcohol, which is reasonable cause but not definitive proof.

An appeal of a conviction based solely upon a police officer's claim to have smelled alcohol should not be difficult, as a deposition or statement from your physician attesting to your medical condition and history of sobriety would be sufficient, given your age and presumably clear driving and criminal records, to cast reasonable doubt upon the officer's statement. All of this should have come up during the hearing, especially if the driver is represented by legal counsel. Additionally, if you have a "witness" to the officer's deceitful statements -- and, it goes without saying, any statements known by the officer to be false would constitute perjury -- then a statement or deposition from this witness, combined with the statement by your physician, should be more than enough to rebut the police officer's claims.