User:KarineMangrum588

In the course of a driving while intoxicated investigation, police officers will often administer some so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This could consist of a battery of three to five tests, usually 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 an increasing number of law enforcement agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and throughout the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will undoubtedly be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and they must be scored objectively rather than utilizing an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not so, based on DUI Lawyer Orange County CA Taylor, a former prosecutor and the composer 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 and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had a lot to drink to drive. " Unknown to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each and every of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The outcomes: 46% of the time the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to operate a vehicle. 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).

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 does have been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. In other words, very nearly half 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 truth that these tests are largely unfamiliar to most people, and that they are given under exceptionally desperate situations, make them more challenging for people to execute. As few as two miscues in performance can result in an individual being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption when the problem could possibly function as the result of unfamiliarity with the test.