Standardized field sobriety tests are physical and mental tests that were designed to be done on the roadside to determine whether or not someone should be arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.
There are three standardized field sobriety tests and officers are trained in the use of these tests, so that when these tests are used together they are a reliable indicator of whether or not someone was impaired for the purposes of driving. These tests include the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk and Turn Test, and the One Leg Stand test. There are three standardized field sobriety tests, but there are many non-standardized tests that many police officers use on a regular basis but lack any sort of scientific validity.
Do Standardized Field Sobriety Tests Really Determine If Someone Is Impaired?
Standardized field sobriety tests were designed by the government. The government hired a research company to go out and do some so-called scientific research to see if they could find some reliable tests that could be used in the field. It was narrowed down to 3 tests, but these tests were never really scientifically validated and they are not something that would pass any sort of test in the real scientific community as far as trustworthiness or reliability.
The best way to summarize it would be saying there have been studies done about the standardized field sobriety tests and many police officers, even well-trained police officers, do not administer and do not score the field sobriety tests correctly. Studies have been done where the police officers were inaccurate in their analysis, because they were given alcohol-free subjects (people who were 100 percent alcohol free) but the police officers indicated that the person failed the field sobriety tests and that they should be arrested for driving under the influence.
The flipside would be true as well. Many people can have unusually high levels of alcohol in their system and still pass field sobriety tests, so a person could be alcohol free and fail, or they could be full of alcohol, 0.08 or much above, and still pass the field sobriety tests. The tests are not actually great indicators of whether or not someone was impaired or whether they were or were not above a 0.08 blood alcohol level.
Regardless, police officers use these tests every day to make arrest decisions and knowing what the field sobriety tests are and how to analyze them can go a long way in convincing either a prosecutor or a jury that a DUI would not be appropriate in that particular situation.
Can I Contact An Attorney Before Agreeing to Perform the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests?
Somebody who was stopped for driving under the influence would not have to do field sobriety tests, unless they were on probation and parole. Police officers often do not tell people they would not actually have to perform the tests, and instead they just ask or tell them to do the tests.
Someone who asked to talk to an attorney before doing any tests would be told they were not allowed to have an attorney at that time, which would not really be true for field sobriety tests, although it would be for implied consent purposes when doing a breath or a blood test. Somebody who was lawfully arrested for driving under the influence would need to submit to a test and would not have the right to talk to an attorney before doing that test. They would not have to do the field sobriety tests, but they would also not get to call an attorney in the middle of the DUI investigation.
Are Standardized Field Sobriety Tests Admissible In Court? How Is Admissibility Determined?
The results of the field sobriety tests would be admissible in court. These tests are something the officer would observe and take notes on, so they could tell the jury what they observed. They could also be part of a hypothetical analysis that went to an expert who could form an opinion regarding whether or not the person was impaired.
In California, there is a “Truth in Evidence” proposition which would allow most evidence in a trial. It would be very difficult to exclude all field sobriety tests although in certain situations, if it could be proven that something was completely unreliable so that it might lead to undue time consumption or improper confusion of the jury, then the judge may exclude it, although typically it would not exclude all the field sobriety tests, so one or two field sobriety tests or portions of certain tests might be excluded.
The general rule is that field sobriety tests would be admissible in court but there are exceptions where the person may be able to get certain evidence excluded because it was just inherently untrustworthy and unreliable.
What Are Common Defense Strategies If an Officer Said Someone Did Poorly on the Test?
Often when the police officer said someone did poorly on field sobriety tests, the first thing I would look at when analyzing the field sobriety tests would be how the officer did, not how the person who was given the test performed or how the driver performed, because many officers simply do not know how to give field sobriety tests. They might not know what clues to look for or what the clues even were. They might not know how to time the tests or instruct the tests correctly, and they might not know how to score the tests correctly.
One of the first things that I would look for in the police report is how the tests were administered and how the officer claimed the tests were administered. During the suppression hearing or at a DMV hearing, I would cross-examine the officer to find out what their training and understanding was of field sobriety tests, and then go from there and start to pick apart the training and experience of the officer and the administration of the test with the proper instructions.
Once we went over everything the officer was supposed to do, we would then be able to switch to the driver or the suspect and see how they responded, what questions they asked, whether they did or did not follow the directions and whether they were able to do what was asked of them.
We could also look at the environment and the location of the test: whether it was on the road, on cement, asphalt, or dirt, and whether it was windy or cold because a lot of different environmental factors can come into play that might affect the person’s performance on the field sobriety tests. There are many ways to defend against field sobriety tests even if an officer claimed that the person had done them wrong, because that would be the beginning of the analysis, not the end of the analysis.
For more information on Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, a free initial consultation is your next best step. Get the information and legal answers you’re seeking by calling (310) 424-3145 today.
Personal Attention
