DUI Lawyer | Joel Brand, Esq.

“Unfair Field Sobriety Test” Defense to a DUI

Introduction

Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) are commonly used by law enforcement officers in California to assess whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. These tests include a series of physical and cognitive tasks designed to measure impairment. However, FSTs are not infallible and can be challenged on various grounds. The “Unfair FST” defense contends that the tests were administered improperly, under unfavorable conditions, or were inherently flawed, leading to inaccurate assessments of sobriety. This article explores the components, legal precedents, and practical application of the “Unfair FST” defense in California DUI cases.

Understanding Field Sobriety Tests

FSTs typically involve three standardized tests established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):

  1. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN): Observing the eyes for involuntary jerking as they follow a moving object.
  2. Walk-and-Turn (WAT): Requiring the suspect to walk in a straight line, turn on one foot, and walk back.
  3. One-Leg Stand (OLS): Instructing the suspect to stand on one leg while counting aloud.

These tests are designed to measure coordination, balance, and the ability to follow instructions, which can be impaired by alcohol or drugs. However, several factors can influence performance, leading to unfair results.

Grounds for the “Unfair FST” Defense

The “Unfair FST” defense can be based on various grounds, each challenging the validity of the test results:

  1. Improper Administration: The officer may have administered the tests incorrectly, deviating from NHTSA guidelines. Common mistakes include providing unclear instructions, failing to demonstrate the tasks, or not allowing the suspect to remove restrictive footwear.
  2. Environmental Factors: Adverse conditions such as uneven surfaces, poor lighting, inclement weather, or heavy traffic can affect performance. These factors must be considered when evaluating the results.
  3. Physical and Medical Conditions: The suspect’s physical or medical conditions, such as injuries, age, neurological disorders, or obesity, can impair their ability to perform the tests accurately. Additionally, certain medications can cause symptoms that mimic impairment.
  4. Non-Standard Tests: Officers sometimes use non-standardized tests that lack scientific validation. These tests, such as counting backwards or reciting the alphabet, can be unreliable and subjective.
  5. Officer Bias and Training: An officer’s lack of proper training or inherent bias can impact the administration and interpretation of FSTs. Inconsistent or prejudiced assessments can lead to unjust conclusions.

Case Law and Legal Precedents

Several California cases highlight the successful application of the “Unfair FST” defense. These cases emphasize the importance of proper administration, environmental considerations, and individual physical conditions.

  1. People v. Williams (2002) 28 Cal.4th 408: This case involved a challenge to FST results based on the suspect’s medical condition. The court acknowledged that physical limitations must be considered in evaluating test performance.
  2. People v. Torres (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 977: The court ruled that environmental factors such as uneven pavement and poor lighting could render FST results unreliable. This case underscored the need for appropriate testing conditions.
  3. People v. Kelley (2000) 75 Cal.App.4th 571: The court found that improper administration of FSTs, including unclear instructions and failure to demonstrate the tasks, could invalidate the results.

Practical Application of the “Unfair FST” Defense

To successfully employ the “Unfair FST” defense, attorneys must meticulously gather and present evidence that casts doubt on the reliability of the FST results. This involves several key steps:

  1. Documenting the Scene: Gathering evidence of the testing environment, such as photographs or videos, can illustrate adverse conditions that may have affected performance.
  2. Medical Records: Obtaining the suspect’s medical records can provide evidence of physical or neurological conditions that impair their ability to perform FSTs.
  3. Expert Testimony: Engaging experts in fields such as neurology, pharmacology, or biomechanics can help explain how specific conditions or medications impacted the suspect’s performance.
  4. Cross-Examining Officers: During cross-examination, attorneys can question the arresting officer about their training, the administration of the tests, and the environmental conditions at the time of the arrest.
  5. Highlighting Non-Standard Tests: If non-standard tests were used, attorneys can argue that these tests lack scientific validity and should not be considered as evidence of impairment.

Conclusion

The “Unfair FST” defense to a DUI charge in California is a robust strategy that leverages the inherent flaws and limitations of Field Sobriety Tests. By challenging the administration, environmental conditions, and the suspect’s physical and medical conditions, defense attorneys can cast doubt on the reliability of FST results. Success in this defense requires thorough preparation, detailed evidence, and expert testimony to convincingly argue that the FSTs were unfair and unreliable. As DUI laws and enforcement practices evolve, the “Unfair FST” defense remains a critical tool in protecting the rights of individuals accused of driving under the influence.

Citations

  • People v. Williams, 28 Cal.4th 408 (2002).
  • People v. Torres, 173 Cal.App.4th 977 (2009).
  • People v. Kelley, 75 Cal.App.4th 571 (2000).
  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Field Sobriety Testing Guidelines.
  • California Vehicle Code Section 23152.