User:DurandOwens203

In the course of a drunk driving investigation, police will usually administer some so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This may contain a battery of 3 to 5 tests, often 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 law enforcement agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and across the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests is going to be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - plus they must be scored objectively as opposed to having 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 basically "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 officers and asked them to decide if the suspects had "had too much to drink to operate a vehicle. " Not known 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).

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 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. In other words, almost half all persons "failing" the tests are not legally intoxicated by alcohol!

In line with the Orange County DUI Attorneysolicitors in Mr. Taylor's Southern California law firm, the fact these tests are largely unfamiliar to many people, and that they are given under exceptionally desperate situations, make sure they are more challenging for people to perform. As few as two miscues in performance can result in a person being classified as "impaired" as a result of alcohol consumption once the problem may actually be the result of unfamiliarity with the test.