DoroteaRoyston849
In the course of a drunk driving investigation, cops will often administer a series of so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This may consist of 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. In an increasing number of law enforcement agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and across the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and they must certanly be scored objectively rather than having 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 key legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition". The tests are ostensibly "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 too much to drink to drive. " Unknown to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The results: 46% of the time the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to drive. Put simply, the FSTs were hardly 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 newest, 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 does have been arrested in relation to test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of significantly less than the legal limit. In other words, almost half of all persons "failing" the tests are not legally under the influence of alcohol!
In line with the Orange County DUI Attorneyattorneys in Mr. Taylor's Southern California law firm, the fact that these tests are largely unfamiliar to most people, and that they are given under extremely adverse conditions, make them more difficult for people to do. As few as two miscues in performance may result in an individual being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption if the problem might actually be the results of unfamiliarity with the test.
