Challenging Your California DUI: Field Sobriety Test
If you or someone you know has recently been charged and/or arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in or around Visalia, California, there are various circumstances surrounding your DUI arrest your attorney might choose to challenge depending upon your best interest. After investigating every aspect of your arrest, your California DUI attorney might choose to challenge probable cause, blood alcohol content (BAC) results or perhaps even any of your rights which may have been violated during your arrest and detainment. However, in this post we are going to discuss one of the more common California DUI challenges: Field Sobriety Test (FST)
Challenging the Administering of FSTs
Although your attorney should thoroughly examine every detail of the traffic stop, roadside test, charging documents and your arrest, the attorney will often want to pay close attention to the arresting officer’s administration of the Field Sobriety Test.
Due to law enforcement officers being in an authoritative role while conducting a traffic stop, many understandably assume the officer is always in the right and correct in their conduct and procedures. Because of this, it is relatively easy for someone who may already be more preoccupied with their potentially being arrested for DUI to be attentive to whether or not the police officer is administering their Field Sobriety Test appropriately and in accordance with the guidelines and procedures setup by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
It is for this reason your California DUI attorney should investigate to ensure the police officer’s administering of any roadside sobriety test was in accordance to the rules and regulations set forth by the NHTSA as well as never once placed you (DUI suspect) at any disadvantage which may have led to your being arrested for DUI.
In 1977, as a result of their having funded a study conducted the Southern California Research Institute as being the only roadside sobriety test that theoretically were objective, accurate to a degree and reliable enough evidence to initiate an arrest for DUI, the NHTSA adopted three testing methods and deemed them as Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST).
- One-Leg Stand Test (DUI suspect stands on one foot with arms held out to their side)
- Walk and Turn (DUI suspect walks heel to toe then back)
- Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (Officer asks DUI suspect to follow and object with their eyes)
All of these three sobriety test have strict rules and regulations for administrating, as well as the scoring process of the tests themselves which must be followed to the exact letter for any of the test to be considered sufficient enough evidence to arrest an individual for DUI.
Challenging the Scoring and Results of FSTs
Yet even if every detail of the test was administered correctly and the police officer scored the test as objectively as possible, an extremely skilled DUI attorney experienced in contesting Field Sobriety Test can often challenge the accuracy and validity of the test results themselves. Your California DUI attorney can argue numerous challenges before the court regarding your ability to perform a sobriety test as requested by the arresting officer.
These challenges might include their client having been diagnosed with astigmatism or other medical related eye defect which would almost certainly alter the police officer’s scoring of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) eye test. Perhaps their client suffers from another medical condition such as an old knee injury, severe arthritis or even gout which would have prevented their being able to place their body weight entirely upon one leg and therefore unable to perform the “One Leg Stand” roadside sobriety test.
Because even the NHTSA funded research into the accuracy of these Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are only accurate in determining the level of intoxication 87% of the time, it can often be argued that even someone who has not taken a single drink of alcohol can easily score low enough on any of these test to have been arrested and charged with DUI.
Just because a driver fails a sobriety test of any kind does not necessarily mean the evidence against them is insurmountable in any way. Often it is far better to remain silent, offer no comments or incriminating statements such as how many drinks you have had and submit to whatever test the police officer requests. When it comes to DUI cases, with the exception of your own words, having what seems to be insurmountable evidence against you is quite often much better in your best interest rather than having had you refused to submit to any testing at all.
While many might be unaware of alcohol effects on the human body and its absorption rate over time, most might be shocked to realize that depending upon their body’s rate of absorption and other physical and/or clinical factors, it is highly plausible for an individual to have a blood alcohol content/concentration (BAC) of .08% or higher, several hours since their having their last drink.
Many California DUI defendants forego trial and plead guilty to their charges as a result of their belief in the accuracy and validity of the California DUI breath test result.
Quite often, human error on the part of the medical professional can quickly render any DUI blood test BAC result inaccurate, unreliable and inadmissible as evidence. Improper handling of the sample, collecting or storing the sample in an unsanitary or inadequately sanitized container and perhaps even the allowing of foreign substances to enter into the testing area causing cross-contamination consistently creates issues with the reliability of DUI blood test all throughout California.
Considering the possible implications of Marijuana DUI conviction such as, jail-time, driving license suspension and a criminal record, it’s prudent to secure a California, Visalia lawyer to attain the best possible defense. A competent and experienced criminal attorney can have charges dropped, help work out a plea bargain or even secure a temporary driving license.
It’s a pretty serious offense that can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. The former carries a maximum sentence of one year and a fine -- or both -- if convicted, while the latter carries a max punishment of three years in a state prison.
“I highly recommend Christopher Marten attorney at law”- an AVVO client
“Peace of mind during the worst time of my life.”- an AVVO client
“I would recommend this lawyer if you're in need of legal advice or representation”- an AVVO client
We have more than 15 years of legal experience
Mr. Martens has an AVVO rating of 10/10, and is highly recommended by former clients.
Over 1,000 cases successfully handled & over 100 jury trials handled.
We manage criminal defense, personal injury, & estate planning cases.
We offer free consultations not matter the case.
You need a lawyer who has the skill and dedication to achieve the best possible outcome while never losing sight of the priorities most important to you. Find out how we can help you protect your future.