JoslinLittle214

Throughout a drunk driving investigation, police will usually administer a series of so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This may consist of a battery of three to five tests, usually selected by the officer; these can include walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand, horizontal gaze nystagmus, fingers-to-thumb, finger-to-nose, Rhomberg (modified position of attention), alphabet recitation, or hand-pat. In an increasing amount of police agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and across the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will soon be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and they must be scored objectively as opposed to utilizing an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not very, based on DUI Lawyer Orange County CA Taylor, a former prosecutor and the composer of the best legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition". The tests are fundamentally "designed for failure". In 1991, Taylor reports, Doctor Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a report on the accuracy of field sobriety tests. His staff videotaped 21 individuals performing 6 common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had a lot to drink to operate a vehicle. " Not known to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each and every of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The outcome: 46% of times the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to drive. In other words, the FSTs were hardly more accurate at predicting intoxication than flipping a coin. Cole and Nowaczyk, "Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Designed for Failure? ", 79 Perceptual and Motor Skills 99 (1994).

How about the new, improved "standardized" DUI tests? Research funded by the National Highway Traffic Administration determined that the three most effective field sobriety tests were walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, and horizontal gaze nystagmus. Yet, even using these supposedly more accurate -- and objectively scored -- tests, the researchers found that 47% of the subjects who would have been arrested in relation to test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of significantly less than the legal limit. Quite simply, very nearly half of all persons "failing" the tests weren't legally intoxicated by alcohol!

According to the Orange County DUI Attorneylawyers in Mr. Taylor's Southern California lawyer, the truth that these tests are largely unfamiliar to most people, and that they get under exceptionally unfortunate circumstances, make sure they are more challenging for people to perform. As few as two miscues in performance may result in someone being classified as "impaired" as a result of alcohol consumption if the problem might actually function as result of unfamiliarity with the test.