User:LeggAshford957

For the duration of a driving while intoxicated investigation, police officers will often administer a series of so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This could contain 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. In an increasing quantity of police force 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 be scored objectively as opposed to having 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 best 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 a study 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 a lot to drink to drive. " Unknown to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of every of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The outcome: 46% of times the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to operate a vehicle. Quite 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).

What about the new, 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 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 weren't legally consuming alcohol!

In line with the Orange County DUI Attorneylawyers 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 acutely desperate situations, make them harder for people to perform. As few as two miscues in performance may result in someone being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption if the problem may actually be the consequence of unfamiliarity with the test.