User:ConferFunk449

In the course of a drunk driving investigation, police officers will often administer a series of alleged "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This might include a battery of 3 to 5 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 amount 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 instead of utilizing an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not to, 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 ostensibly "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. " Not known to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of every of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The results: 46% of the time the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to operate a vehicle. Put simply, the FSTs were scarcely 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 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 discovered that 47% of the subjects who have been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of significantly less than the legal limit. In other words, very nearly half of all persons "failing" the tests were not legally consuming alcohol!

In line with the Orange County DUI Attorneysolicitors in Mr. Taylor's Southern California lawyer, the fact these tests are largely unfamiliar to the majority of people, and that they are given under extremely desperate situations, make them more difficult for people to perform. As few as two miscues in performance can lead to a person being classified as "impaired" due to alcohol consumption when the problem may actually be the result of unfamiliarity with the test.