DUI and DWI: The Role of Field Sobriety Tests

When a driver is stopped on suspicion of DUI or DWI, one of the first things an officer may request is a field sobriety test. These roadside exercises are often seen as decisive evidence, but in reality, their reliability is limited. For individuals suddenly facing DUI DWI difference, it is crucial to understand how these tests work, what their weaknesses are, and how they factor into a legal defense.

Field sobriety tests are designed to measure physical coordination, balance, and the ability to follow instructions. Common examples include the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand, and the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which evaluates involuntary eye movements. Officers use these tests as indicators of impairment, but performance can be influenced by many factors beyond alcohol or drug use.

For instance, medical conditions, fatigue, nervousness, or even uneven road surfaces can cause a completely sober person to perform poorly. Age, weight, and physical fitness also play significant roles in how someone responds to these tests. Despite these limitations, poor performance is often used by officers as justification for arrest.

It’s important to note that field sobriety tests are not mandatory in most states. Drivers generally have the right to refuse them without facing the same penalties that come with refusing a chemical test. However, many people comply because they believe refusal will make them appear guilty or because they don’t realize the tests are optional.

Another issue with these tests is their subjectivity. Unlike chemical tests, which produce measurable results, field sobriety tests rely on the judgment of the officer. This creates room for bias, errors, or inconsistent application of standards. What one officer views as a failure, another might interpret differently.

Defense attorneys often challenge the validity of field sobriety tests in court. They may question the conditions under which the test was administered, the driver’s medical background, or whether the officer was properly trained. Video evidence from dashcams or bodycams can sometimes reveal inconsistencies between the officer’s report and what actually occurred.

Additionally, field sobriety tests are frequently presented alongside chemical test results, such as breath or blood tests. If the chemical results are disputed, the officer’s observations during the field sobriety tests may become a more central part of the prosecution’s case. This makes it even more important for defense attorneys to scrutinize these tests closely.

While field sobriety tests are intended as investigative tools, they are far from infallible. Courts recognize their limitations, and skilled legal defense can often reduce their impact on the outcome of a case.

Kohn & Yager has successfully defended clients by challenging the reliability of field sobriety tests and exposing flaws in how they were conducted. Their experience ensures that individuals facing DUI and DWI charges receive the strongest possible defense against these often-misunderstood procedures.