| |
Georgia FIELD SOBRIETY EVALUATIONS
OR “TESTS”
|
Motorists suspected of DUI / DWI
are routinely asked by police officers to perform one or more field
sobriety exercises. These voluntary “tests” (yes, voluntary)
were developed by police agencies to assist law enforcement officers
in making roadside determinations as to whether a motorist is under
the influence of alcohol or drugs. Through the performance of these
tests or evaluations, the officer subjectively determines how the
motorist reacts to and performs the requested tasks.
Almost EVERY knowledgeable DUI / DWI attorney will
say to you, “NO. Don’t attempt ANY ‘field tests’---EVER.”
That is because many studies have concluded that the SFSTs are
“designed to fail”.
Police officer administering Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Evaluation as part of a police arrest. Officer may use finger, penlight or other object as the stimulus. Don't submit to ANY field evaluations in Georgia, since the Georgia Constitution permits you to politely decline such "testing" at the roadway.
|
A motorist's alleged poor performance on field evaluations
may provide the “probable cause” (legal justification)
an officer needs to arrest a person for impaired driving and may
also become part of the proof used to later convict the person
at trial. See Parrish v. State, 216 Ga. App. 832, 456 S.E.2d 283
(1995). Therefore, it is very important that, in defending you,
your defense attorney know as much or more about these tests as
the police, if he or she is going to defend you.
One sure way to know that your attorney is up to
date: is your lawyer “NHTSA certified”? Certified
as a “student”? Or certified as an “instructor”.
Ask him/her. This training has been available to defense attorneys
since 1994, and over 1000 attorneys nationwide have received the
training. Mr. Head is an SFST instructor, and has taught or helped
teach these evaluations to over 300 other defense lawyers.
Counsel for the defense should challenge the subjective
nature of the evaluations, the accuracy of the principles behind
the tests, the accuracy of the administration of the tests, the
credibility of the officer who “requested” the tests,
and challenge all circumstances connected with the evaluations.
The attorney representing you must attack the factual and legal
issues that may arise regarding the officer's scoring and evaluation
of the field tests.
Only three tests have been “scientifically”
studied (in lengthy studies paid for by the federal government)
and represented to have any measure of reliability in helping
an officer predict whether a subject is above a certain legal
limit (0.10 BAC, in the original testing). These tests, known
as the “standardized field sobriety tests” [SFSTs],
were designed pursuant to numerous federal grants and ultimately
sanctioned by NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration)
beginning in 1984. These three tests are (1) the walk and turn
[WAT] test, (2) the one leg stand [OLS] test, and (3) the horizontal
gaze nystagmus [HGN] test. However, the manuals (plural here,
because 6 separate versions have now been released) say that if
not performed properly, or if conducted without adhering to the
training protocols, such actions “compromise” the
validity of these evaluations.
Starting in the 1970’s, NHTSA began studying
and funding “field tests” to see if any of the dozens
of police exercises had any correlation to showing if a drinking
driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.10 grams percent or higher.
The “studies” determined that only the three named
evaluations had any reliable correlation better than 50-50 (flipping
a coin and guessing ‘heads’, being a 50-50 reliability
test, for example) to identify a person having a BAC of 0.10%
or more. These evaluations in no way were used to determine whether
a driver is impaired . . . only whether the person may be 0.10
or more.
The HGN evaluation, when performed correctly on
proper subjects, had a 77% “claimed” reliability rating.
The WAT exercise, when conducted properly on a qualified subject
on a dry, level surface, was found to be 68% reliable. The OLS
exercise, when conducted properly, on a qualified subject on a
level, dry surface and under proper instructions and where correctly
demonstrated and scored, reportedly yields about 65% reliability.
Cumulatively, if all are done correctly, up to 83% correlation
to a BAC of 0.10% or more may be expected.
Knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers know that
98% or more of the officers administering these evaluations do
them wrong, or conduct them in a manner (or on a test subject)
not approved by the SFST manual, or grade the evaluations improperly,
as per the manual, or ALL OF THE ABOVE. When done incorrectly,
these evaluations have ZERO predicted reliability. Hence, a top-notch
DUI/DWI lawyer can cross-examine the arresting officer using his/her
OWN training materials that the federal government and YOUR state
government have approved.
Recent research and scientific review of the testing
protocols and scoring methodology have brought the NHTSA “Standardized
Field Sobriety Tests (“SFSTs”) into serious question.
Courts across America are taking a closer look at the original
research, to see if proper scientific methods were employed in
the initial research. More and more courts are now saying “no”
to these questions. In a recent New Mexico case, a high-level
court has declared that the person who “developed”
the tests (Dr. Marcelline Burns) was not qualified to testify
as an expert witness about the scientific principles behind the
HGN test. (Lasworth v. State, 42 P.2d 844 (N.M. App. 2001).)
HISTORIC ROOTS
Prior to the 1980's and NHTSA's studies on field
testing, police officers across America were taught a wide variety
of “tests” to be given to persons stopped for suspected
drunk driving. Most of these “tests” had never been
studied to determine “fairness” or accuracy in detecting
either impaired drivers or drivers who were operating a vehicle
while their BAC level was 0.10 BAC or more. Moreover, no standardized
method (that is, not being done the same way by officers who used
these tests) of scoring or grading these tests had been attempted.
Simply stated, the decision to arrest was based upon the subjective
whim of the officer. Mistakes were made in a large percentage
of cases.
Tests given by some officers may have included reciting
the alphabet (or a portion thereof), picking up coins off the
ground, or touching index fingers to the tip of the nose while
the person’s eyes were closed and head tilted back. Some
involved strange, one-legged tapping on the roadway with a raised
foot (similar to what that famous television horse, Mr. Ed, used
to do). These “made-up” tests were administered to
subjects without any scientific or empirical basis for reliability
in detecting an impaired driver. These tests were designed for
failure, not for fairness. Even worse, police officers often forced
people to perform these voluntary evaluations, thereby violating
these citizens’ rights.
Some “non-standardized” tests were so
ridiculous and difficult that proof of non-validity was easy with
almost any jury or judge. Today, officers who lack NHTSA training
invariably cannot cite any studies or scientific research which
“validated” their tests, the scoring (e.g., “pass”
or “fail”) or their testing methods. Almost always,
no scoring system is used on tests which do not adhere to NHTSA
guidelines. If non-standardized tests are used, the number of
errors that are required for a subject to fail is totally subjective
with each officer. Hence, the untrained officer is usually an
easy target for a skilled and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney
who knows the “limitations” of these field tests.
THE ISSUE OF THE ``SCIENCE'' OF FIELD TESTING
A great rift exists among scientific experts on
the question of whether field sobriety tests are ``scientific.''
For example, Georgia's appellate courts have blown hot and cold
on this subject. Torrance v. State, 217 Ga. App. 562, 458 S.E.2d
495 (1995); Manley v. State, 206 Ga. App. 281, 424 S.E.2d 818
(1992); Foster v. State, 204 Ga. App. 632, 420 S.E.2d 78 (1992);
Crawford v. City of Forest Park, 215 Ga. App. 234, 450 S.E.2d
237 (1994) [holding that field tests given by the arresting officer
were not ``a scientific procedure,'' but ``simply a behavioral
observation on the officer's part'']; Hassell v. State, 212 Ga.
App. 432, 442 S.E.2d 261 (1994); Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App.
34, 476 S.E.2d 803 (1996). Challenges to field sobriety tests
based upon proof of a scientific foundation by an expert have
been rejected by the court of appeals. Druitt v. State, 225 Ga.
App. 150, 483 S.E.2d 117 (1997). See also Padgett v. State, 230
Ga. App. 659, 498 S.E.2d 84 (1998), where the court of appeals
held that field sobriety tests are merely dexterity exercises
and the word ``tests'' is a misnomer.
The reason that most credible scientists across
America (and in other countries) are unwilling to categorize field
tests -- even NHTSA's tests -- as being “scientific”
is that too many variables are involved in roadside testing to
ever eliminate pure chance and non-controlled circumstances from
the equation (e.g., environmental conditions such as lighting
and roadway slope). Numerous states, including Texas, Alabama
and Mississippi, do not permit HGN evidence to be admitted at
trial. The reason behind this is that these “party games”
(as noted Swedish scientist Dr. A.W. Jones has called them) do
not pass well-established rules f evidence (the court rules for
determining when certain types of information may be told to the
jury) for scientifically acceptable tests.
Even NHTSA admits that under optimal conditions
(i.e., in an air-conditioned, well lighted room) 35% of sober,
drug-free subjects get inaccurate results on the one leg stand
test, 32% of sober subjects get flawed results on the walk and
turn, and 23% of sober subjects are inaccurately said to be “over
the legal limit” on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.
By comparison, polygraph (lie detector) tests are more than 90%
accurate when conducted by a qualified operator), and (absent
a stipulation by both parties) are still not permitted into evidence
by most courts.
Issues of unreliability and lack of scientific validity
cannot be extensively addressed on this website. The author commends
the following articles for your study of this fascinating subject:
(1) Nowaczyk, Ronald H., and Cole, Spurgeon, Separating
Myth from Fact: A Review of Research on the Field Sobriety Tests,
NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1995, p. 40.
(2) Cowan, Jonathan D., Proof and Disproof of Alcohol-Induced
Driving Impairment Through Evidence of Observable Intoxication
and Coordination Testing, 9 Am Jur Proof of Facts 3d, p. 459 (1990).
(3) Cowan, Jonathan D., Proof and Disproof of Alcohol-Induced
Impairment Through Breath Alcohol Testing, 4 Am Jur Proof of Facts
3d, p. 229 (1989).
(4) Trichter & Peña, DWI/DUI Field Sobriety
Testing Revisited, NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1996, p. 17.
(5) Price, Phillip B., Sr., Field Sobriety Testing,
NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1996, p. 46.
THESE ARE VOLUNTARY TESTS
Only a small number of states have tried to pass laws to make
the field tests not be 100% voluntary. These states typically
will assess a monetary fine against someone who says “no”
to these voluntary tests. So what? I tell all my fiends and relatives
and clients: DON’T ATTEMPT THESE TESTS. Other states have
said that the State Constitution provides that no person can be
compelled to take such tests.
Case law in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions indicates
that if a person is being detained or is “in custody,”
no field tests can be given without first providing Miranda advisements
(i.e., right to remain silent; right to an attorney; if you can’t
afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you). State v. O'Donnell,
225 Ga. App. 502, 484 S.E.2d 313 (1997). Hence, the new focus
for defense attorneys is to establish that some sort of ``custody''
or detention has occurred prior to the field tests. See also Price
v. State, 269 Ga. 222, 498 S.E.2d 262 (1998).
However, many appellate courts have bent over backward
to ignore clear signs of custody. For example, despite guns being
drawn on a driver, the Georgia Court of Appeals (in Hassell v.
State---see citation above) ruled that this was not “custody”.
Of course, this is a ridiculous ruling, but part of “Georgia
law,” regardless.
Other courts have stood tall and said “if
NHTSA tests are supposed to be scientific, then they must be done
correctly”. The previously mentioned Lasworth case from
the New Mexico Court of Appeals is just such a case.
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that the
officer’s failure to follow NHTSA training in administering
field sobriety exercises was a factor in determining the admissibility
of the test. State v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2000). In Homan,
a NHTSA-trained officer’s admitted failure to administer
the field sobriety exercises in strict compliance with NHTSA’s
standardized testing procedures invalidated (and excluded) all
of the State’s evidence about the field sobriety exercises.
The Homan court made the following findings regarding the unreliability
of field tests not conducted in compliance with NHTSA procedure:
When field sobriety testing is conducted in a manner
that departs from established methods and procedures, the results
are inherently unreliable. In an extensive study, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) evaluated
field sobriety tests in terms of their utility in determining
whether a subject’s blood-alcohol concentration is
below or above the legal limit. The NHTSA concluded that
field sobriety tests are an effective means of detecting legal
intoxication “only when: the tests are administered in the
prescribed, standardized manner[,] . . . the standardized
clues are used to assess the suspect’s performance[, and]
. . . the standardized criteria are employed to interpret
that performance.” National Highway Traffic Safety
Adm., U.S. Dept. of Transp., HS 178 R2/00, DWI Detection and Standardized
Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual (2000), at VIII-3. According
to the NHTSA, “[i]f any one of the standardized field sobriety
test elements is changed, the validity is compromised.”
Id. Experts in the areas of drunk driving apprehension, prosecution,
and defense all appear to agree that the reliability of field
sobriety test results does indeed turn upon the degree to which
police comply with standardized testing procedures. See, e.g.,
1 Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases (3 Ed.1997), Section 10.06[4];
Cohen & Green, Apprehending and Prosecuting the Drunk Driver:
A Manual for Police and Prosecution (1997), Section 4.01.
ROADSIDE ALCOHOL SCREENING TESTS
A portable breath testing device may be used by
police officers in determining whether or not a motorist is under
the influence of alcohol. Some states have banned the use of these
voluntary “non-evidential” screening devices. “Non-evidential”
means that “the digital number” can’t be used
against you in court. Some states have ruled that the only place
at trial that these can be used is at a pre-trial hearing at which
“probable cause” for arrest is involved.
Like other “field tests”, these devices
are used at the roadway. Often, police officers do not regularly
check the devices for calibration. Furthermore, the manufacturer’s
instructions (e.g., failing to observe a 15 minute deprivation
period, waiting at least 4 minutes between tests, or clearing
the prior test results) for proper use are routinely ignored.
Some states have started using these roadside testers
as evidential tests. This is accomplished when a small printer
is attached to the breath test apparatus. Unless your state uses
such a device as an OFFICIAL state-mandated breath test, no person
should ever submit to these devices and risk a false positive
result and almost certain arrest. Politely DECLINE to give this
voluntary sample, if it is not the official state test.
THE NEWEST “VOODOO” SCIENCE: THE “DEC”
PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY DRUG USE
Government studies have revealed that many drivers
are under the influence of drugs, or a combination of alcohol
and drugs. To combat this, an effort has been mounted since the
early 1990’s to add some type of training to the police
officer's arsenal that will assist in identifying drug-impaired
individuals. Hence, NHTSA has created the ``Drug Evaluation and
Classification'' (DEC) Program. A DEC officer does not typically
work in the field (i.e., making traffic arrests), or make the
initial arrest of an impaired driver. A DEC officer is called
in after a subject either shows a low score on an alcohol test,
or otherwise ‘smells’ like or ‘acts’ like
he/she has been using drugs. The proper procedure is for the DEC
officer to give Miranda warnings to the person (already in custody),
and then start “the evaluation for drug usage”. SIMPLE
RULE: SAY NO! You have just been told of your constitutional rights---USE
THEM! Say nothing and do nothing beyond say, “I’d
like to speak to an attorney.” More information on Your
Constitutional Rights.
The function of DEC is to ascertain:
(a) Whether the person is impaired by something;
(b) If impaired, is it from drugs as opposed to
alcohol;
(c) If the impairment appears to be from drugs,
what ``manifestations'' or visible indicia of impairment would
indicate the TYPE or CATEGORY of drug being used?
As opposed to trying to target a single ``impairing''
chemical, the DEC process seeks to ``recognize'' indications of
any of seven broad categories of drugs:
(1) Central nervous system depressants, such as
Valium, Xanax or alcohol;
(2) Central nervous system stimulants (e.g., crack
or powder cocaine);
(3) Hallucinogens, such as L.S.D.;
(4) Phencyclidine, such as P.C.P. (which can manifest
itself as a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogen, and is highly
unpredictable);
(5) Inhalants, such as glues or other aerosol products,
which block the passage of oxygen to the brain;
(6) Narcotic analgesics, such as Demerol, Dilaudid,
opium, heroin, Methadone and other powerful pain relievers; and
(7) Cannabis (marijuana and its ``family'' of psychoactive
plants.)
[For more detailed information on all types of common
drugs, click here.]
The hope of the police is that these DEC evaluations
can be used in court to identify impairment from drugs even if
the person refuses all blood and urine testing. Absent a blood
or urine test or an admission of recent drug use, “opinion”
testimony must be based upon something more than a wild guess
or speculation. Ironically, NHTSA designed the DEC Program for
post-arrest investigation, to be done in a carefully controlled
environment (as opposed to “field” evaluation).
Numerous “task force” officers across
America have taken IACP-approved DEC classes to enable them to
identify a subject impaired by drugs. IACP is the acronym for
International Association of Chiefs of Police. Sometimes referred
to as “DREs” or “DRTs” (drug recognition
experts or drug recognition technicians), these officers utilize
a series of simple evaluations and observations to help them identify
individuals impaired by drugs.
Interestingly, even the IACP recognizes the limitations
of the DEC program. For example, the agency recognizes that DEC-trained
officers cannot identify exactly what drug (or drugs) a person
is “on.” Only one of the seven broad “categories”
listed might be identified, if the person has been fully trained
and certified. IACP has emphasized the need for an analytical
chemical test (such as a GC-MS test) to confirm the officer's
“suspicions” about drug use. This is because anything
less than a chemical test is just “an educated GUESS”.
The law does not support guesswork in criminal trials, because
the State must prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABL DOUBT.
The DEC process includes an alcohol screening evaluation
on a roadside screening device such as an Alco-Sensor. It also
includes administering the NHTSA standardized field sobriety tests.
The twelve components of the DEC process include:
(1) A breath alcohol screening test to determine
an estimated BAC level;
(2) Interviewing the arresting officer, to see what
was seen or heard in earlier contact;
(3) The preliminary examination, including questions
to determine pre-existing injury, or the existence of a health
or mental condition that may mimic drug use;
(4) Eye examination, using both horizontal and vertical
nystagmus tests, plus checking to see if the eyes converge properly;
(5) Divided attention tests, including walk and
turn, one-leg stand, finger to nose and the Romberg balance test;
(6) Vital signs examination, checking pulse rate,
blood pressure and temperature;
(7) Dark room examination, including measurement
of pupil size, reaction of the eyes to light and tell-tale evidence
of ingestion of drugs by nose or by mouth;
(8) Examination of muscle tone -- Depending on the
type of drug used, muscles can be rigid or flaccid. Examination
is performed from the bicep to the wrist;
(9) Looking for injection sites, (i.e., needle marks
or “tracks”) on the arms, neck, legs, etc.;
(10) Questioning the suspect -- After giving all
the required “constitutional and statutory” advisements,
ask the subject questions concerning the drug or drugs suspected
to be involved;
(11) The opinion of the DEC evaluator is used to
summarize the “findings” and to fill out reports designed
to document the observed facts which support the officer's conclusions;
and
(12) A toxicological examination (blood test) to
provide scientific, admissible evidence to substantiate the DEC
evaluator's conclusions. (This assumes that a person submits to
the test offered, where an option to NOT do so exists.)
A properly equipped DEC officer will have these
items with him or her:
(a) blood pressure kit;
(b) an electronic aneroid thermometer;
(c) a pupillometer (to measure the size of the subject's
pupils);
(d) a preliminary alcohol screening device, such
as an Alco-Sensor; and
(e) access to a dark room.
The DEC protocol teaches officers to not only look
for either contraband (illegal) or controlled substances (i.e.,
those drugs which cannot be purchased without a prescription),
but to take note of over-the-counter medications that the subject
has ingested which may have caused or contributed to the suspect's
impairment. Certain allergy and cold medicines have been determined
by the American Medical Association and FDA to be particularly
unsafe for persons who are driving. These include Benadryl, Allerdryl,
Contac Severe Cold Formula, Vicks Nyquil, Trifed, Phenergan and
others.
Although the use of DEC evaluations by “DRE”
officers requires extensive training, this is a wave of the future.
Decisions in several states have upheld DEC evaluations by DRE
officers, utilizing both a Daubert analysis and a Frye analysis
of admissibility. Daubert and Frye are well-known federal cases
that have carved out the rules of when and after what type of
judicial review scientific evidence can be admitted at a trial.
About 45 of the 50 states follow one standard or the other. See
State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1994) [using a Daubert
analysis] and People v. Quinn, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818 (Suffolk County
Dist. Ct. 1991), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 607 N.Y.S.2d
534 (Sup. Ct. App. Term 1993) [using a Frye analysis]. See State
v. Sampson, 6 P.3d 543 (Or.App. 2000) for a fascinating analysis
of prior DEC admissibility in various states.
As with other “pro-prosecution”
types of “scientific” evidence, expect courts to overrule
objections to DEC evaluations based on highly discretionary trial
court review of “proper” evidence. The need of the
State to “make our highways safe” will likely outweigh
the “voodoo” nature of the DEC “opinion”
evidence. The best hope for the defense is that a fair-minded
judge will look at the highly irregular nature of this evidence
and declare “the State has not laid a proper foundation
for this scientific evidence. Therefore, this evidence is excluded.”
|
William C. Head, Senior Partner
|
© 2007 - 2008 Head
Thomas Webb & Willis LLC. All Rights Reserved. |
Privacy Policy |
