HartshornMoreira90

In the course of a drunk driving investigation, police officers will usually administer a series of so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This may contain a battery of 3 to 5 tests, often selected by the officer; these can sometimes 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 a increasing number of police force agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and over the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and they should be scored objectively rather than utilizing an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not very, according to DUI Lawyer Orange County CA Taylor, a former prosecutor and the author of the best legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition". The tests are basically "designed for failure". In 1991, Taylor reports, Doctor Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted research on the accuracy of field sobriety tests. His staff videotaped 21 individuals performing 6 common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 cops and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had a lot to drink to drive. " Not known to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The results: 46% of times the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to operate a vehicle. 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).

What about the newest, improved "standardized" DUI tests? Research funded by the National Highway Traffic Administration determined that the three most reliable 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 would have already been arrested based on test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. Quite simply, almost half of all persons "failing" the tests weren't legally under the influence of alcohol!

According to the Orange County DUI Attorneysolicitors in Mr. Taylor's Southern California lawyer, the fact these tests are largely unfamiliar to the majority of people, and that they are given under excessively unfortunate circumstances, cause them to become more challenging for individuals to execute. Merely two miscues in performance can lead to an individual being classified as "impaired" as a result of alcohol consumption when the problem might actually be the consequence of unfamiliarity with the test.