User:WoolfordBottom305

For the duration of a driving while intoxicated investigation, police will usually administer a series of alleged "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This could consist of a battery of three to five tests, often 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 an increasing amount 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 instead of using 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 author of the leading legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition". The tests are ostensibly "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 and asked them to decide if the suspects had "had a lot 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 barely 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).

Think 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 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. Quite simply, almost 1 / 2 of all persons "failing" the tests weren't legally under the influence of alcohol!

According to the Orange County DUI Attorneylawyers in Mr. Taylor's Southern California lawyer, the truth that these tests are largely unfamiliar to most people, and that they receive under extremely unfortunate circumstances, make sure they are more challenging for individuals to perform. As few as two miscues in performance can lead to someone being classified as "impaired" due to alcohol consumption if the problem may actually be the consequence of unfamiliarity with the test.