GuayWigginton29

Throughout a dui investigation, cops will usually administer a series of so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This could 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. In a increasing number of police agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and over the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will soon be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - plus they should be scored objectively rather than having an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not very, in accordance with 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, Doctor 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. " As yet not known to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The outcome: 46% of that time period the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to operate a vehicle. In other words, the FSTs were barely more accurate at predicting intoxication than flipping a coin. Cole and Nowaczyk, "Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Made 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 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 found that 47% of the subjects who would have been arrested based on test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. Put simply, nearly 1 / 2 of all persons "failing" the tests weren't legally intoxicated by alcohol!

In line with the Orange County DUI Attorneysolicitors in Mr. Taylor's Southern California attorney, the fact these tests are largely unfamiliar to many people, and that they receive under exceptionally desperate situations, make sure they are harder for folks to do. As few as 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.