EveyBergquist816

For the duration of a driving while intoxicated investigation, police officers will often administer some so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This might consist of a battery of three to five tests, frequently selected by the officer; these can 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 quantity of police 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 - plus they must 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 writer 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 a report 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 that time period 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 best 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 found that 47% of the subjects who would have been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. In other words, almost half of all persons "failing" the tests are not legally under the influence of alcohol!

According to the Orange County DUI Attorneylawyers in Mr. Taylor's Southern California law firm, the fact these tests are largely unfamiliar to most people, and that they are given under excessively unfortunate circumstances, cause them to become more difficult for folks to perform. Only two miscues in performance can result in an individual being classified as "impaired" due to alcohol consumption once the problem may actually function as the consequence of unfamiliarity with the test.