User:MarjaDerouen623

In the course of a drunk driving investigation, police will most likely administer some so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This may contain a battery of three to five 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 a increasing number of law enforcement agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and across the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will soon be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and so they must certanly be scored objectively as opposed to using an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not very, based on 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, 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 if the suspects had "had a lot to drink to drive. " Unknown 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 drive. Quite simply, the FSTs were hardly 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).

Think about the 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 unearthed that 47% of the subjects who have been arrested based on test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. Quite simply, almost 1 / 2 of all persons "failing" the tests were 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 the majority of people, and they are given under excessively unfortunate circumstances, make sure they are more difficult for people to perform. As few as two miscues in performance can lead to someone being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption when the problem may actually be the results of unfamiliarity with the test.