Three reasons are DUI field sobriety exercises unreliable

The patrol pulled behind the vehicle and the officer flips on his lights. Their passage. Raise your window as the officer approached the driver's door. He asks if you have a drink in the evening today. Then he asks you out of the car. On the side of the road, ask if you were willing to take his "field sobriety tests." The officer begins to read the instructions for the "test" and then shows you what he wants to take you. The twopsychomotor "tests" Florida DUI police officer asks you to run, that is to walk and turn and one leg. After performing, the officer will probably find that you are "testing" failed, and placed under arrest for DUI.

The exercises of the police officer to arrest six unreliable. There are three main reasons why these tests are not reliable and should not be given validity in court: The scientific study of the test do not show them to be valid, the exercises can not distinguishbetween the influence of alcohol and the damage caused by lack of sleep or of coordination has caused, and the exercises are anomalies in the test that should not be tested for its ability to normal.

1. The science does not back up the validity of field sobriety tests.

So in 1970, NHTSA has funded a research project to field sobriety tests to investigate. Studies have examined whether the field sobriety tests could predict whether the art was above or below a 10% BAC, the likely level ofRush in California, Florida, and many other states, at the time of study.

The results of 1977

It is interesting to note that prior research funded by NHTSA found that in order to test the alphabet and finger nose test was not intended to be used as a sobriety test, why not add anything, has recommended the predictability of the subject influence of alcohol. E 'thus not surprising that police officers, those two years using today's DUI investigations continue, since the"Bible" of DUI Police Officer training is issued by the Student Manual from NHTSA.

More interestingly, the officer from 1977 study participants had an error rate of 47%! Of the 101 people affected, the head of DUI have been completed, had 47% of their blood alcohol concentration of less than 0.10 (the legal limit at the time).

So in 1981, NHTSA felt the need to try again. However, the results of this test is to hope that a resounding NHTSA has concludedthat the field sobriety tests were scientifically valid. Arrested by the individual 118 32% had a blood alcohol level was below 0.10.

2. The exercises can not distinguish between the influence of alcohol and causing damage to the lack of sleep or coordination.

Although it can be assumed that the officers are able to assess the adverse effects of field sobriety tests, it is not possible to conclude that the influence of alcohol rather than simply tired orbe awkward. carried out for example in 1994, Spurgeon Cole, a clinical psychologist and researcher with Clemson University, a field study to test the hypothesis that Sobriety Exercises completely sober person would find the exercises difficult to perform and would be assessed as a result of compromise " alcohol "of the officers that their performance.

The study evaluated the performance Fourteen police officers from 21 people, that the field sobriety tests had been completed. L 'The officers had an average of 11.7 years of experience, and all had completed the training and practical experience of the state DUI DUI detection.

The participants were 10 men and 11 women 21-55 years, with no known disabilities. The participants completed six areas of activities, including the walk and turn, finger to his nose and stand with one leg. The officers saw the performance on video. At the end of the video every 21 officers were invited todetermine, yes or no, if participants were impaired and should not drive.

3. The field sobriety tests are abnormal exercise to try not to use, normal schools should be assessed.

In Florida, a DUI lawyer will tell you there is just against the law to drink and then go to the extent that the normal abilities are impaired by drinking. Just then the driver would be guilty of DUI. But, clearly, all the tests of the foot and rotate on a line or standing onfoot exercises are abnormal. What the officer should check is whether the defendant is able to walk normally, or are in order. As a result, the tests are really designed for the individual to fail.

Based on the above three reasons, practical sobriety are inherently unreliable. A DUI lawyer should bring to the attention of the jury if they try your DUI case.

carfinance