BE SEEN, BE HEARD!

  • Place your comments on any of the posts on this site for other readers to view. It's simple, just click on the "comment" link below the post which you desire to leave a comment. Then type your comment. It will be reviewed, and if appropriate, published for all to read.

NOTICES & DISCLAIMERS

  • Nothing on this site should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship.
  • This weblog is published by Stephen Isaacs. It is an exercise in journalism, not legal advice.
  • The posts to this blog are the intellectual property of Stephen Isaacs unless otherwise noted. However, you are authorized by license to make certain use of them for non-commercial re-publishing of blog posts, with credit to the original author, subject to the license terms herein.
  • THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT
    This web blog is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Copyright© 2006. Stephen J. Isaacs. All Rights Reserved.

« Common Mistakes Police Officers Make In DUI Arrests | Main | Insurance Rates Increase with DUI »

January 15, 2007

Standard Field Sobriety Tests Do Not Accurately Measure Driver Impairment.

Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) do not accurately determine impairment for probable cause to support an arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

The SFSTs originally researched by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) fail to provide a standardized means of objectivity and unscientifically assessing impairment. The SFSTs were originally developed to assist the officer screen a driver for probable cause to arrest the indivudual for drunk driving. Yet frequently the officer gives the SFSTs after deciding that the driver is guilty of DUI.

The effectiveness of the SFSTs has been called into question since they were developed by NHTSA and are therefore "self-serving". In a 1977 study, researchers learned that 47 percent of the subjects that would have been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations less than the legal limit of 0.10 (the legal limit was reduced to 0.08 in 2000). In 1981, the same researchers conducted further "standardized" testing and learned that the the false results dropped to 32 percent: in other words, in this test nearly one out of every three individuals who failed the test were not legally intoxicated. 

Subsequent independent scientific researchers have found these Standard Field Sobriety Tests  flawed.  Many of these same researchers in 1987 observed that the SFSTs determined balance, steadiness, and reaction time but  concluded that a connection between these factors and driving ability was not apparent because neither a steady stance nor simple movement time is essential to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. The researchers did concede that the Standard Field Sobriety Tests may show the presence of alcohol, but that they did not necessarily measure driving ability.

Research on the validity and accuracy of the Standard Field Sobriety Tests conducted in 1991 at Clemston University further showed the SFST's yield false results.  In this study, 21 sober individuals with a blood alcohol content of .00 were videotaped performing six common Field Sobriety Tests. The videotapes were then shown to 14 officers who were asked to determine if the individuals had too much to drink and drive. The officers were not informed that the individuals on the videotapes were sober.  The officers found that 46 percent of the time the individuals were too intoxicated to drive.

Generally officers do not give the Standard Field Sobriety Tests uniformly, and as noted, there is no scientific basis for assuming they are valid. Many officers either administer the wrong tests or improperly instruct the suspect driver on how to perform the tests. A DUI defense attorney can obtain a pretrial suppression ruling to exclude the SFSTs and their alleged indication of impairment due to lack of scientific foundation and improper instructions.

Post by Kentucky DUI Lawyer, Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Add to Technorati Favorites

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834534d1869e200d83444b68353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Standard Field Sobriety Tests Do Not Accurately Measure Driver Impairment.:

» DWI Blog Review from Austin DWI Lawyer
Some recent good stuff about DWI and DUI defense around the web that Ive been meaning to catch up with:Lawrence Taylor discusses an important random variable in the DWI arrest decision process: the officer himself.Stephen Isaacs writes about pro... [Read More]

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.