appellant's vehicle travelled one-half mile before appellant stopped.  Appellant
acknowledged to the officer that he had been drinking.  Tisdel detected a strong odor of alcohol
on appellant's person.  When appellant got out of his vehicle, a beer bottle fell out of the truck. 
Appellant's walk was unsteady on the level ground.  He failed three field sobriety tests
administered to him by Officer Tisdel.  Based on all his observations the experienced officer
advised appellant that he was under arrest for driving while intoxicated and took him into custody. 
An inventory search of appellant's pickup truck revealed a number of beer cans, some full, some
empty, and one half empty.
	At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, appellant argued that the officer had
not expressed an opinion as to appellant's intoxication andcase, appellant was driving his vehicle erratically.  When stopped,
he admitted to the officer that he had been drinking.  There was a strong odor of alcohol about
his person.  When appellant exited the vehicle, a beer bottle fell out of the truck.  His walk was
unsteady.  Appellant failed to pass three field sobriety examinations specifically the alphabet,
counting, and "finger to nose" tests.  The results of these tests clearly indicated that appellant did
not have the normal use of his mental and physical faculties.  Based on the facts and the
observations made, the officer advised appellant that he was under arrest for driving while
intoxicated.  The prosecution overlooked asking the officer the usual question of whether the
officer was of the opinion that appellant was intoxicated, although the