User:LianMerida250

In the course of a drunk driving investigation, cops will usually administer a number of alleged "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This might contain a battery of 3 to 5 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 throughout the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and so they must certanly be scored objectively rather than using an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not very, according to 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 fundamentally "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 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had a great deal to drink to drive. " Unknown to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The results: 46% of times the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to drive. In other words, 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).

How about the brand 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 discovered that 47% of the subjects who would have been arrested in relation to test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. In other words, very nearly half of all persons "failing" the tests were not legally under the influence of alcohol!

According to the Orange County DUI Attorneysolicitors in Mr. Taylor's Southern California lawyer, the truth that these tests are largely unfamiliar to most people, and that they are given under extremely unfortunate circumstances, make sure they are more difficult for individuals to perform. As few as two miscues in performance can result in a person being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption when the problem may actually function as the results of unfamiliarity with the test.