Reveal Law

Unveiling the Secrets of Field Sobriety Tests: Debunking Myths Exploring Reliability

Title: Unveiling the Truth about Field Sobriety Tests and Their Impact on DUI ChargesField sobriety tests (FSTs) have long been an integral part of law enforcement’s arsenal when it comes to identifying and apprehending intoxicated drivers. However, the reliability of these tests and their impact on DUI charges have often been subjects of debate.

In this comprehensive article, we aim to shed light on the subject, exploring the legal obligations surrounding FSTs, their reliability, and the various factors that can affect their accuracy.

Legal Obligation and DUI Charges

Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs)

Field sobriety tests (FSTs) are a series of physical and mental tests used by law enforcement officers to assess a driver’s impairment. These tests often include the

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN),

Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and One-Leg Stand (OLS) tests.

They serve as the initial indicator of intoxication and can provide probable cause for further testing. – Field Sobriety Test Basics:

– The

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test assesses involuntary eye movements caused by intoxication.

– The

Walk-and-Turn (WAT) test evaluates a driver’s ability to follow instructions and maintain balance. – The One-Leg Stand (OLS) test measures a driver’s balance and ability to stand on one leg.

Legal Obligation and DUI Charges

When a driver is pulled over under suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI), they have a legal obligation to comply with law enforcement’s request for an FST. Refusal to participate in these tests can lead to penalties such as license suspension or increased DUI charges.

– Consequences of Refusing FSTs:

– License suspension: Refusing FSTs may result in immediate suspension of the driver’s license. – Increased charges: Refusal to participate in FSTs can lead to enhanced DUI charges.

Reliability of Field Sobriety Tests

Reliability of FSTs

While FSTs serve as a preliminary tool to assess intoxication, their reliability is not without scrutiny. Various factors can affect their accuracy, ultimately influencing their ability to determine impairment accurately.

– Reliability Factors:

– Officer training: The competence and experience of the administering officer can influence the accuracy of FSTs.

– Inherent limitations: FSTs are subjective assessments and prone to human error, affecting their reliability. – External influences: Environmental factors such as uneven surfaces, poor weather conditions, and inadequate lighting may affect FST results.

Factors Affecting FST Performance

Apart from the limitations of FSTs, several personal factors can impact an individual’s performance during these tests, potentially leading to false positive results. – Factors Affecting Performance:

– Age and physical condition: Older individuals and those with certain health conditions may have difficulties performing FSTs.

– Anxiety and stress: Emotional stress and anxiety can hinder an individual’s performance during FSTs.

– Language barriers: Limited English proficiency might affect a driver’s understanding and execution of FST instructions.


In conclusion, understanding the legal obligations surrounding field sobriety tests (FSTs) and their impact on DUI charges is crucial for both law enforcement and drivers. While FSTs serve as an initial indicator of impairment, their reliability can be influenced by various factors, ranging from officer training to inherent limitations.

Personal factors such as age, physical condition, anxiety, and language barriers can also affect FST performance. By illuminating these aspects, we hope to promote a more comprehensive understanding of FSTs and foster informed discussions regarding their role in DUI enforcement.

Unveiling Defense Strategies and Factors Affecting FST Reliability

Defense Strategies, Unreliable FSTs

Field sobriety tests (FSTs) are not infallible, and their reliability can be challenged in court through various defense strategies. Defense attorneys may argue that the FSTs were administered incorrectly or that they are inherently unreliable indicators of impairment.

– Challenging FSTs:

– Inconsistent training: Defense attorneys may question the training and certification of the officer administering the FSTs, raising doubts about their ability to conduct them correctly. – Individual physical characteristics: Attorneys might argue that an individual’s physical condition, such as obesity or medical conditions, influenced their performance on FSTs, leading to inaccurate results.

Improper Testing Setting

The setting in which field sobriety tests are conducted can significantly impact their reliability. Factors such as poor lighting, uneven surfaces, or distracting background noise can affect a driver’s performance, leading to false positive results.

– Impact of Testing Environment:

– Poor lighting conditions: Inadequate lighting may hinder a driver’s ability to perform FSTs accurately, obscuring their balance and coordination. – Unstable or uneven surfaces: Testing on an unstable or uneven surface may compromise a driver’s balance, potentially resulting in falsely incriminating performance on FSTs.

– Distracting surroundings: Loud noises, passing traffic, or other distractions can interfere with a driver’s concentration, affecting their ability to follow instructions during FSTs.

Physical Conditions and False Positives

Certain physical conditions or limitations can make it difficult for drivers to perform field sobriety tests accurately. These conditions can inadvertently lead to false positives, indicating impairment when none exists.

– Medical Conditions and False Positives:

– Inner ear issues: Conditions affecting the vestibular system, responsible for balance, can negatively impact a driver’s performance on FSTs.

– Neurological disorders: Individuals with neurological disorders may experience tremors or difficulties with coordination, affecting FST results. – Fatigue and exhaustion: Being physically or mentally exhausted can mimic the symptoms of impairment, potentially leading to false positive FST results.

Police Mistakes and Subjectivity of Scoring

The subjectivity involved in interpreting field sobriety test results makes them vulnerable to mistakes and potential bias. Law enforcement officers’ subjective judgment in scoring can impact the accuracy and objectivity of FST results.

– Scoring Subjectivity and Potential Bias:

– Personal interpretation: Officers assign scores based on their subjective interpretation of FST performance, potentially introducing bias into the assessment. – Mistakes in scoring: Human error can lead to mistakes in scoring, with officers inadvertently inflating or deflating FST results, potentially affecting the outcome of DUI charges.

– Lack of standardized criteria: The absence of specific, standardized criteria for scoring FSTs can result in inconsistencies across law enforcement officers and jurisdictions.

Exploring Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs)

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs)

In an effort to enhance the reliability and standardization of field sobriety tests, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established a set of standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) used nationwide. These tests have undergone rigorous validation studies to improve their accuracy.

– Standardized Field Sobriety Tests Overview:

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN): This test assesses involuntary eye movements as the driver follows a stimulus, typically a pen or flashlight, held horizontally. –

Walk-and-Turn (WAT): The WAT test measures a driver’s ability to follow instructions while walking heel-to-toe along a straight line, turn, and return.

One-Legged Stand (OLS): In the OLS test, drivers are instructed to stand with one foot raised off the ground while counting aloud for a specified duration.

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN)


Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, one of the standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), relies on the observation of involuntary eye movements to detect possible impairment. – HGN Test Procedure:

– The officer asks the driver to follow a stimulus (e.g., a pen or flashlight) using only their eyes.

– The officer looks for three distinct indications of impairment: lack of smooth eye movement, distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation, and onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees.

Walk-and-Turn (WAT)


Walk-and-Turn (WAT) test, another component of SFSTs, assesses a driver’s ability to follow instructions, maintain balance, and divide attention. – WAT Test Procedure:

– The driver is asked to take nine heel-to-toe steps along a straight line, turn on one foot, and return in the same manner.

– The officer observes the driver for various indicators of impairment, such as an inability to walk heel-to-toe, losing balance, stepping off the line, or making incorrect turns.

One-Legged Stand (OLS)


One-Legged Stand (OLS), the final component of the SFSTs, evaluates a driver’s balance and ability to divide attention. – OLS Test Procedure:

– The driver is instructed to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground while counting aloud by thousands (e.g., “one thousand, two thousand”).

– The officer looks for signs of impairment, including swaying, using arms to balance, hopping, or putting the raised foot down before completion. By delving into the specific standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) and exploring their individual procedures, it becomes evident that these tests undergo continuous scrutiny to ensure their reliability and accuracy in identifying impaired drivers.

Understanding these tests and the factors that can impact their results is essential when considering their role in determining DUI charges.

Cognitive Testing and Preliminary Breath Tests

Cognition-testing Questions and Signs of Intoxication

In addition to standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), law enforcement officers often rely on cognition-testing questions and observations to assess a driver’s level of intoxication. These questions are designed to test the driver’s mental acuity and assess their ability to process information under the influence.

– Cognition-testing Questions:

– Reciting the alphabet: Officers may ask drivers to recite the alphabet backward or forward to evaluate their mental concentration and impairment level. – Counting tasks: Drivers might be asked to count backward from a specific number or perform simple arithmetic calculations to gauge their cognitive abilities.

– Memory tasks: Remembering a series of instructions or information can help determine a driver’s short-term memory and attention span. – Signs of Intoxication:

– Slurred speech: Alcohol or drugs can affect speech patterns, causing slurring or difficulty enunciating words clearly.

– Incoherent responses: Intoxicated individuals might struggle to provide coherent and logical answers to questions or engage in a conversation. – Impaired motor skills: Lack of coordination, stumbling, or fumbling when retrieving documents can indicate impairment.

Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) and Probable Cause

Law enforcement officers often employ a preliminary breath test (PBT) as a means to assess an individual’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels promptly. However, a PBT typically cannot be used as evidence in court to prove intoxication and is predominantly used to establish probable cause for further testing.

– PBT Procedure and Limitations:

– Officers use handheld devices, such as breathalyzers, to measure a driver’s breath alcohol content. – PBTs provide an initial estimate of BAC levels, but their accuracy might not meet the standards required for evidentiary use.

– PBTs can detect the presence of alcohol but do not distinguish between alcohol and other substances. – Establishing Probable Cause:

– A positive PBT result, indicating alcohol consumption, can provide law enforcement with probable cause to conduct further testing, such as a chemical test.

– Probable cause is necessary to proceed with a DUI arrest and to continue with evidentiary tests that may be admissible in court.

Evidentiary Tests and

Chemical Test Refusal

Evidentiary Tests

Evidentiary tests, also known as chemical tests, are more accurate and objective methods of measuring blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and are typically conducted at the police station or a medical facility. These tests carry greater weight in legal proceedings compared to preliminary tests.

– Types of Evidentiary Tests:

– Breath test: Using an evidential breath testing device (EBT), officers measure the alcohol concentration in a driver’s breath, which correlates with their BAC. – Blood test: Blood samples taken from the driver are sent to a laboratory for analysis, providing a precise measurement of alcohol or drug content in their system.

– Urine test: Although less common, urine tests can detect the presence of drugs or alcohol. However, they are considered less accurate for determining BAC.

– Legal Implications: The results of evidentiary tests can be used as evidence in court to support DUI charges. Each jurisdiction has prescribed legal limits for BAC, and exceeding these limits can result in legal consequences.

Chemical Test Refusal

Drivers have the right to refuse a chemical test, but such refusal does not guarantee immunity from legal consequences. Each jurisdiction has its own laws regarding the implied consent to chemical testing and the penalties associated with refusal.

– Implied Consent Laws: By operating a motor vehicle, drivers implicitly consent to chemical testing if suspected of DUI. Refusal can result in administrative penalties, including license suspension, even if the driver is not ultimately convicted of a DUI offense.

– Legal Consequences of Refusal:

– License suspension: In many jurisdictions, refusing a chemical test can lead to immediate license suspension, typically for a longer duration than if the driver had submitted to testing and returned a BAC above the legal limit. – Enhanced penalties: Some jurisdictions impose enhanced penalties for chemical test refusal, even if the driver would otherwise have faced lesser penalties for a DUI conviction.

Understanding the different types of evidentiary tests and the potential consequences of refusing these tests is crucial for drivers confronted with a DUI arrest. By familiarizing oneself with state-specific laws and consulting with legal professionals, individuals can make informed decisions regarding chemical testing and navigate the legal process with greater confidence.

Non-Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (Non-SFSTs) and Their Exclusion

Non-Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (Non-SFSTs)

Alongside standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), law enforcement officers sometimes employ non-standardized field sobriety tests (non-SFSTs) to gather additional evidence of impairment. Unlike SFSTs, non-SFSTs lack standardization and scientific validation and may vary significantly in their administration and interpretation.

– Examples of Non-SFSTs:

– Finger-to-Nose Test: Drivers may be asked to close their eyes and touch their nose with their index finger, testing their coordination and ability to follow instructions. – Rhomberg Balance Test: Individuals are asked to tilt their head back, close their eyes, and estimate a specific duration (such as 30 seconds) while standing still, assessing their internal clock perception.

– Finger Count Test: Officers may request drivers to count their fingers or perform finger-wiggling exercises, checking for decreased manual dexterity associated with impairment.

Exclusion of Non-SFSTs and Lack of Scientific Basis

Non-SFSTs often face exclusion from admissibility in court due to their lack of scientific basis, standardization, and reliability. The absence of clear guidelines for administration and interpretation raises concerns about potential bias and inaccuracies.

– Scientific Basis and Standardization:

– Non-SFSTs lack the extensive research and validation that has been conducted for SFSTs, undermining their scientific credibility and reliability. – Without standardized procedures and clearly defined criteria, non-SFSTs’ subjective nature and inconsistent application can lead to inconclusive results or potential misinterpretation.

– Admissibility in Court:

– The admissibility of non-SFSTs as evidence in court varies across jurisdictions, with many courts excluding them due to the lack of scientific basis and standards. – Judges may question the reliability and relevance of non-SFSTs, potentially deeming them inadmissible as they do not meet the legal requirements of admissible evidence.

– Lack of Standardization and Reliability:

– The use of non-SFSTs introduces a wide margin for error, as interpretations of performance can vary significantly between officers, leading to potential inconsistencies in determining impairment. – The subjectivity and lack of standardized protocols for non-SFSTs make it challenging to establish their reliability or compare results across different testing situations.

– Potential Bias and Misinterpretation:

– Non-SFSTs offer greater room for interpretation, increasing the risk of subjective assessments influenced by an officer’s conscious or unconscious bias. – The absence of standardized criteria for interpreting non-SFST results can result in subjective judgments that may not align with an objective assessment of impairment.

As non-standardized field sobriety tests (non-SFSTs) lack scientific basis, standardization, and reliability, their exclusion from admissible evidence in court is a common practice. The emphasis on standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) in DUI cases is grounded in their extensive research, validation, and nationally recognized protocols, ensuring greater objectivity and accuracy.

Understanding the limitations and potential pitfalls of non-SFSTs is crucial for both drivers and legal professionals when evaluating their evidentiary value and the fairness of their implementation in DUI cases.

Popular Posts