User:DiemerHicks697

Throughout a drunk driving investigation, cops will most likely administer some so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This might include a battery of three to five tests, frequently selected by the officer; these may 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. Within an increasing quantity of law enforcement agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and throughout the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - plus they should be scored objectively rather than using an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not so, in accordance with 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 ostensibly "designed for failure". In 1991, Taylor reports, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study 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 perhaps the suspects had "had too much to drink to drive. " Not known to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of every of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The results: 46% of that time period the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to operate a vehicle. In other words, the FSTs were barely more accurate at predicting intoxication than flipping a coin. Cole and Nowaczyk, "Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Created for Failure? ", 79 Perceptual and Motor Skills 99 (1994).

Think 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 unearthed that 47% of the subjects who have been arrested in relation to test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. In other words, very nearly half of all persons "failing" the tests were not legally under the influence of alcohol!

Based on the Orange County DUI Attorneylawyers in Mr. Taylor's Southern California law firm, the truth that these tests are largely unfamiliar to most people, and they are given under exceptionally adverse conditions, make them harder for people to perform. As few as two miscues in performance can lead to an individual being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption when the problem might actually function as the results of unfamiliarity with the test.