BurrussPenner349

Throughout a driving while intoxicated investigation, cops 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 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 number of law enforcement agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and across the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will undoubtedly be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and so they must be scored objectively as opposed to using an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not so, 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 basically "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 whether the suspects had "had too much to drink to drive. " Not known to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each and every of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The outcomes: 46% of the time 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).

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 have been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. In other words, nearly half all persons "failing" the tests were not legally consuming 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 the majority of people, and they are given under exceptionally adverse conditions, cause them to become more challenging for folks to perform. Merely two miscues in performance can result in someone being classified as "impaired" as a result of alcohol consumption when the problem may actually be the result of unfamiliarity with the test.