NHTSA Lies about Field Sobriety Tests

August 5th, 2006 Allen Trapp Posted in Field Sobriety Tests 2 Comments »

     The three-test battery of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests has been promoted by NHTSA over the past twenty years and has been adopted by all fifty states.  In three highly publicized ”validation studies” NHTSA claims to have found the proof  that these FST’s are valid measures of BAC.  All of the field studies are pretty consistent in terms of low false negative rates.  However, the same cannot be said of false positives, and that is what should concern us - the wrongly accused being arrested because of flawed “science.”
     The reason why so many people over .08 and.10 BAC show 4+ HGN clues is that so many people have 4+ HGN clues at .04, .05, and .06 BAC.  In the Good, Augsburger report, where 94% of .10 BAC were positive for HGN, 82% of the people UNDER .10 were also positive with at least 4 HGN clues.  Although NHTSA trumpted that the exercise is “94% accurate in identifying intoxicated people”, there was a concerted effort to ignore the fact that their own data says the test is 82% inaccurate as applied to INNOCENT PEOPLE.    
     The Colorado study found 1 in 8 people under .05 had 4+ HGN clues.  
     In the Florida study 16% of all people below .08 BAC had all 6 clues, and it suggests that over 50% had at least 4 clues, but it doesn’t just come out and say it.  NHTSA attempts to conceal these numbers by saying that half of the correctly released drivers had 0 or 2 HGN clues.  That suggests that HALF of the correctly released drivers (under .08) had MORE than 2 clues.  The Florida report also acknowledges that 67% of all incorrect arrests (under .08) had all 6 clues. 
     Too many judges (and certainly most prosecutors) have been sold on NHTSA’s cooked up numbers.  NHTSA is an organization built on lies and deception, and one of the purposes of this blog is to educate the public about their deceptions.  In court we educate juries about how the government twists evidence and data in order to satisfy the NHTSA-MADD coalition with DUI convictions, regardless of the truth about any individual defendant.  After all, they’re just ”drunk drivers” and not citizens in the eyes of the NHTSA-MADD coalition.  
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

HGN and Tharp’s Equation

August 5th, 2006 Allen Trapp Posted in Field Sobriety Tests No Comments »

Tharps Equation is used in the DRE (drug recognition expert) protocol to determine whether or not alcohol is the cause of the observed nystagmus. In another words, it “rules” out alcohol as the cause of impairment. The formula the DRE candidate is taught is BAC = 50 - A (Angle of Onset).

The interesting thing about Tharps Equation is that it is merely a statistical approximation - not a mathematical formula (and we all know what Mark Twain says about statistics). Tharps Equation can be off by .05% or more, even if the person has consumed no drug other than alcohol. Even its proponents concede that Tharp’s Equation does not reflect an exact relationship for all subjects at all times (according to NHTSA).

Keep in mind that the SFST protocol only allows for the prediction of above or below the per se level. What usually happens is the DRE talks and unqualified officers use the formula to estimate the BAC (although 99% of the time they are not performing the Onset of Nystagmus Prior to 45 Degrees properly). We question the “reliability” of a statistical formula, as well as the proper estimation of 45 degrees by the Officer.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Field Sobriety Tests - Are they designed for failure?

May 23rd, 2006 Rob Leonard Posted in Field Sobriety Tests 1 Comment »

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.

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button