User:MiguelBeem246

In the course of a dui investigation, police officers will usually administer a series of so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This might consist of 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 police agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and across the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will undoubtedly be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and they must certanly be scored objectively rather than utilizing 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 author of the leading legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition". The tests are basically "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 and asked them to decide perhaps the suspects had "had a lot to drink to drive. " Unknown to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of every of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The outcomes: 46% of that time period the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to drive. In other words, 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).

What about the brand 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 already been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. Quite simply, very nearly half 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 law firm, the fact that these tests are largely unfamiliar to the majority of people, and they are given under exceptionally unfortunate circumstances, make them more difficult for individuals to perform. As few as two miscues in performance can result in an individual being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption once the problem might actually be the results of unfamiliarity with the test.