Speeding

A series of field sobriety tests that police officers can use to determine whether a person is intoxicated. the most common tests are the finger-nose test, relying on the evidence or balance of the evidence. However, only a few tests – such as the one-leg stand, horizontal gaze nystagmus, and walk test and turn – intended to be standardized. The so-called field sobriety tests (SFSTs) are intended to carry out and scored consistently. However, often erroneously indicate SFSTs that a person is intoxicated, even when the person is known not to be intoxicated. This article summarizes the major problems with the SFSTs.

1. The standardized field sobriety tests have not been subjected to rigorous scientific testing. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has attempted on several occasions in 1995, 1996 and 1997 to validate the SFSTs with little success. In each study, the research protocol depart from the NHTSA normal standards of legitimate scientific research. For example, NHTSA touts the fact that one of his studies of the enforcement officers of the SFSTs were able to determine correctly in 86% of people tested whether each person had an alcohol content (BAC) of .05% or more. However, NHTSA ignores the fact that 79% of people tested by officers had a BAC greater than 0.05%. Therefore, even the officials who simply assumes that A person's BAC was more than 0.05% would be correct 79% of the time. Similarly, NHTSA studies tended to use agents who knew they were in in one study and were motivated to validate the SFSTs. The basic data collection subjects interested in achieving a particular outcome is never a technical scientifically valid.

2. The standardized field sobriety tests are often not obtained in a standardized manner. The police often differ in the way SFSTs score. In fact, NHTSA studies confirmed that officers were not on test scores in a valid way. In a study by the NHTSA, a police official said "balance inadequate" was a hint of intoxication in the test-and-back motion. In fact, " inappropriate balance "is a track by the NHTSA identified as relevant to test-and-back motion. Similarly, other officials try somehow had with more tracks than it would have been possible if the test was successful. These failures to mark SFSTs consistently puts the lie to the claim SFSTs that are standardized.

3. Data show that the NHTSA standardized field sobriety tests do not accurately predict close cases. The SFSTs were designed in late 1970 to test whether a person had a BAC greater than 0.10%. Since then, many states have reduced their limits blood alcohol of 0.08%. NHTSA tried to validate the evidence of lower limits, but ultimately failed. NHTSA studies show that when faced with a person with a BAC of 0.08%, the officer could properly determine that the person had a BAC over the legal limit in only 60% of cases. In other words, when applied to a person who is severely intoxicated, the SFST is little more than a coin toss.

In summary, Standardized field sobriety tests are inherently unreliable. However, due to a concerted effort by police organizations and support groups, the public is largely unaware that people are arrested and convicted driving while intoxicated based on shoddy pseudo-science. It is important that lawyers for the defense of DUI who is not afraid to stand up and educate judges and jurors the shortcomings inherent in sobriety tests.

Attorney Advertising Material. Michael Stamp an attorney at the Stamp Law Firm PLLC and a Fairfax DUI defense lawyer experienced in representing clients in high-stakes cases. He serves clients throughout Northern Virginia, including Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties. If you have been arrested for a DUI in Virginia, contact the Stamp Law Firm as soon as possible.

President Obama Holds Online Town Hall on Health Reform