Telling a police officer “I only had two drinks” rarely helps, and according to Nabeel Kibria, a DC DUI attorney and partner at Monument Legal, it often hurts. The statement is an admission that you drank before driving, and it hands the government part of what it needs to prove a DUI.
Most people say it because they think it sounds honest and harmless. In the video above, Nabeel Kibria explains why that line backfires and why staying quiet is usually the better approach during a DUI stop in Washington, DC.
Quick answer: Saying “I only had two drinks” admits you consumed alcohol before driving. In Washington, DC, prosecutors must prove you operated a vehicle while intoxicated or under the influence under D.C. Code § 50-2206.11. Under Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), roadside answers are generally usable even without Miranda warnings, so a clearly stated choice to remain silent protects you better.
The statement admits that alcohol is in your system and that you were drinking before you drove. A DC DUI attorney sees that admission show up in nearly every police report where it was made.
Under D.C. Code § 50-2206.11, the government must prove two things: that you operated or were in physical control of a vehicle, and that you were intoxicated or under the influence at the time. Having a drink is not a crime. As Nabeel Kibria puts it, saying you had two drinks “gets the government and the police halfway there.”
The admission also helps the officer justify next steps. A statement about drinking, combined with an odor of alcohol or a traffic violation, can support a request for field sobriety tests or an arrest.
Yes, in most cases. Ordinary roadside questioning during a traffic stop is not “custodial,” so officers generally do not need to read Miranda warnings before asking how much you had to drink.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided this in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). The Court held that routine traffic-stop questioning is not custodial interrogation, and that the protections of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) apply once a person is in custody. Custody means you are under arrest or restrained to a similar degree.
In practice, this means many drivers make their most damaging statements before anyone reads them their rights. Waiting for a warning before staying quiet is a mistake.
No fixed number of drinks puts every person at 0.08. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explains that blood alcohol concentration (BAC) depends on several factors, not a simple drink count.
According to NHTSA’s The ABCs of BAC, the factors include:
NHTSA defines a standard drink as about half an ounce of alcohol, roughly a 12-ounce beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine or a shot of spirits. A cocktail or a large pour can contain more than one standard drink, which is another reason “two drinks” is a vague and risky number to give an officer.
Yes. DC law allows a charge even when your BAC is under 0.08, which makes any admission about drinking more significant.
Under D.C. Code § 50-2206.01, you are “impaired” when alcohol or drugs affect your ability to drive “in a way that can be perceived or noticed.” Operating while impaired (OWI) is its own offense under D.C. Code § 50-2206.14, and a first OWI carries a $500 fine, up to 90 days in jail, or both under § 50-2206.15.
Be polite, provide your license and registration, and clearly say you choose to remain silent. A DC criminal defense attorney will tell you that the words matter: silence alone may not protect you.
The Fifth Amendment protects you from being compelled to be a witness against yourself. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, though, that you generally must invoke that right out loud. In Salinas v. Texas (2013), a plurality found that simply staying quiet did not invoke the privilege. In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Court required the invocation to be unambiguous.
A simple, respectful statement works: “I am going to remain silent, and I want a lawyer.” Staying silent does not mean being rude or refusing lawful instructions. Stay calm, keep your hands visible and follow lawful orders.
“Just having drinks doesn’t mean you’re necessarily drunk and under the influence, but going ahead and making an admission that you had two drinks immediately lets the officer know that at least there’s alcohol in your system.”
Nabeel Kibria, Partner, Monument Legal
If you already told an officer how much you drank, that statement is one piece of the case, not the whole case. Every case depends on its own facts, and a review of the stop can show where you stand.
Is it better to lie to police about drinking than to admit it?
No, lying to police is never the answer. A false statement can damage your credibility with the court and can create separate legal problems. Your choice is not between admitting and lying. You have a third option, which is to politely decline to answer questions about drinking and clearly say you want to remain silent and speak with a lawyer. That approach protects your rights without adding a new problem to your case. Providing your license and registration and following lawful instructions remain appropriate.
Can my statement be suppressed if I was never read my rights?
Sometimes, but it depends on when you made the statement. Under Miranda v. Arizona, statements from custodial interrogation without proper warnings generally cannot be used by the prosecution. Under Berkemer v. McCarty, though, routine roadside questioning before arrest usually is not custodial. Statements made after an arrest, or in circumstances that amounted to custody, can raise a valid Miranda issue. A defense attorney looks at the exact timeline, including body-worn camera footage, to see when custody began.
Does the officer’s report always include what I said?
Officers usually record admissions about drinking in their reports because those statements support the arrest. In Washington, DC, a stop may also be captured on a body-worn camera, which can confirm or contradict the written report. The exact words matter. “Two drinks” written in a report can sound very different from what was said on video, including the context and timing. That is one reason a DC DUI attorney requests all available recordings and compares them line by line with the officer’s account.
What if I really did only have two drinks?
Even if it is true, saying it to the officer still admits that alcohol was in your system before you drove. The truth of the statement does not limit how the prosecution can use it. Whether you were actually intoxicated or impaired is a separate question that depends on evidence such as chemical test results, driving behavior and observations on video. Your attorney can present accurate context at the right time and in the right setting, which is very different from explaining yourself on the roadside.
Nabeel Kibria is a partner at Monument Legal, licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia. This video is for general information only and is not legal advice. Every case is different, and nothing in this video should be treated as guidance for your specific situation. For advice about your case, consult an attorney directly.