User:KimbraCovington583

In the course of a dui investigation, cops will usually administer a number of alleged "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This may contain a battery of 3 to 5 tests, usually 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 agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and over the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will undoubtedly be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - plus they must 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 leading legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition". The tests are fundamentally "designed for failure". In 1991, Taylor reports, Dr. 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 police officers and asked them to decide perhaps the suspects had "had too much to drink to operate a vehicle. " Not known 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 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 discovered that 47% of the subjects who have already been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of significantly less than the legal limit. Put simply, almost half of all persons "failing" the tests were not legally under the influence of alcohol!

In line with the Orange County DUI Attorneylawyers in Mr. Taylor's Southern California law firm, the fact these tests are largely unfamiliar to many people, and that they get under extremely desperate situations, make them more challenging for people to perform. As few as two miscues in performance can result in someone being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption when the problem could possibly function as the results of unfamiliarity with the test.