Benutzer:KohlerWalling349
In the course of a drunk driving investigation, cops will often administer a number of so-called "field sobriety tests" (FSTs). This might include a battery of three to five tests, usually 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. In a increasing number of law enforcement agencies in DUI Lawyer Orange County, California and throughout the nation, a "standardized" battery of three tests is going to be given - walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand and nystagmus - and they should be scored objectively instead of utilizing an officer's subjective opinion.
How valid are these FSTs? Not so, according to DUI Lawyer Orange County CA Taylor, a former prosecutor and the author of the best legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition". The tests are ostensibly "designed for failure". In 1991, Taylor reports, Dr . Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a report 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 officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had a great deal to drink to operate a vehicle. " Unknown to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each and every of the 21 subjects was. 00%. The results: 46% of times the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to drive. Put simply, the FSTs were hardly more accurate at predicting intoxication than flipping a coin. Cole and Nowaczyk, "Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Created for Failure? ", 79 Perceptual and Motor Skills 99 (1994).
How about the newest, 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 does have been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations of less than the legal limit. Quite simply, very nearly half of all persons "failing" the tests are not legally consuming alcohol!
In line with the Orange County DUI Attorneylawyers in Mr. Taylor's Southern California law firm, the fact that these tests are largely unfamiliar to many people, and that they get under acutely unfortunate circumstances, cause them to become more difficult for folks to do. Merely two miscues in performance can lead to an individual being classified as "impaired" because of alcohol consumption if the problem may actually function as result of unfamiliarity with the test.
