利用者:ZilviaCorrales847

In the course of a drunk driving investigation, police officers will usually administer a series of alleged "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This may consist of 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. Within an increasing number of law enforcement agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and throughout the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests will be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - plus they should be scored objectively in place of having an officer's subjective opinion.

How valid are these FSTs? Not very, in accordance with DUI Lawyer Orange County CA Taylor, a former prosecutor and the writer of the key 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 perhaps the suspects had "had too much to drink to operate a vehicle. " Unknown to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each 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. 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 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 unearthed that 47% of the subjects who would have now been arrested in relation to test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of significantly less than the legal limit. In other words, almost half all persons "failing" the tests were not legally under the influence of alcohol!

Based on the Orange County DUI Attorneyattorneys in Mr. Taylor's Southern California law firm, the fact these tests are largely unfamiliar to most people, and they are given under exceptionally unfortunate circumstances, make them more challenging for individuals to execute. Merely two miscues in performance can result in an individual being classified as "impaired" due to alcohol consumption when the problem may actually be the result of unfamiliarity with the test.