Field Sobriety Tests - Are they designed for failure?
Before you go any further, you need to read the NHTSA validation studies which can be found here, here and here. You also need to read the Cole and Nowaczyk study from Clemson University which was published in a journal called Perceptual and Motor Skills in 1994.
Having been trained in DUI detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing I have some thoughts on the subject. Mostly the tests seem to be very subjective and are poor indicators of impairment when someone has low and mid-range levels of alcohol in their system. I recently performed the tests on my mother-in-law, sister-in-law and my wife. Using the NHTSA scoring, the only one not going to jail is my wife. They were sober, indoors with no environmental difficulties commonly found on the side of the road and had no fear of being arrested. I swear I didn’t just decide to arrest my mother-in-law for no reason, she really did fail. She was not drunk, she just can’t do a divided attention test or follow directions.
So, how have these tests become so popular and widely accepted in court? Society wants to convict drunk drivers. In the 1970’s, NHTSA paid a research group to come up with some tests. Many tests were tried and almost none were any better than a coin flip at determining whether someone was impaired or not. The three that did come up over that 50% that NHTSA adopted are the three test battery that we are all familar with. HGN, Walk & Turn and One Leg Stand. 70-80% accuracy is good enough for government work, so there you have it.
There are some more recent validations studies too that make the numbers even better according to NHTSA. The same lady (Burns) that originally proposed and validated the tests was behind the new validation numbers as well. It’s like asking Ford Motor Company, Which American company produces the best cars? You knew what the answer was going to be before you even asked the question.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 9th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
You know and I know that if you are lining someone out with FST’s you have already established reasonable cause and they are probabl/99% going to the whoscow for blood breath or urine. OF COURSE they are subjective, that is the object - to test a subject. So I guess what the heck is the problem here. A simple DUI is a brightline case. See subject driving X which is a tendency of a DUI, I stopped same and found Y which prompted me to adminster FST’s which the result of which is Z then I decided that S was likely under the influence, transported same, obtained B,B, or U and blah blah blah…… what is the problem?
You can use statistics like a drunk uses a light standard for support or illumination- you decide. There is nothing earth shattering here,,,,,,,
Do you want to outlaw FST’s? Are you suggesting alternate FST’s like in Steve Martins movie ‘The Jerk’?