Are field sobriety tests fair or unfair? Why or why not?

Question

I asked this in "law enforcement" category, but thought I would ask again and see if I got any different answers.

NHTSA says that current tests are 65-77% accurate, depending on the test. This statistic is disputed by some who say field sobriety tests are designed for failure.

What do you think? How did you form this opinion?

I do NOT endorse drinking and driving, not that this is relevant to the question, but I thought I would state this for the record.

Answer 1

I think a field sobriety test COULD be fair, and many police officers are fair when administering them. But there are no clear standards, and it's a little known fact that a cop can charge you with DUI on the basis of only judgment--you could blow zero on the breathalizer, ace the field sobreity, and show only trace alcohol on a blood test, and the cop can still charge you--and you'll be convicted if you don't pop $500 for a lawyer.

What a racket! There ought to be strict criteria for the field sobriety testing, with the option for a motorist to refuse it and choose a different sobreity test if desired. I have two bad knees and if the cop tells me to stand on one foot, it might not happen!

But in general I think DUI enforcement, as conducted, is stupid.

Consider DUI checkpoints. The cops--they're not entirely dumb--put them up where they expect to catch a good number of drunk drivers. Look at the actual statistics; for every 100 cars they stop, they issue 1 citation for drunk driving. Yes, that's one drunk off the road--at a cost of about 10 hours of police officers' work and the inconvenience of 99 innocent drivers.

Personally, I don't care if the driver is drunk--I care if the driver is driving like an idiot, and the cause of that could be drunkenness, sleepiness, or just good old American dumbth. I want my cops out issuing citations or making arrests for moving violations--I'd love to see a cop pulling people over for no turn signal, tailgating, driving too slow, or improper turn. If they'd sweep all hazardous drivers off the road, they'd reel in all the drunks as well.

I'm still nonplussed by the first time I saw some idiot weaving in and out of rush hour traffic, tailgating and cutting people off, gunning and screeching and wasting gas and getting nowhere much--and proudly displaying a bumper sticker that said 'MADD'. I guess that other group, Drunks Against Mad Mothers, might have a point.

Answer 2

They are fair in the sense that they give the officers an idea of your condition. I don't know of any area that relies on the field test for arresting and convicting a drunk driver. It is a preliminary test. Should you fail it, you will probably be taken in for either a blood test or breathalizer test. Most areas give you the choice of test and I would prefer blood test as it is more accurate. Some areas strech tests by having Drunk Driving and also driving while impaired, which is alcohol level below 0.8 but carries almost the same punishment. Those having a physical disability that may cause a false field test should carry a statement from their Doctor indicating this condition.

Answer 3

We don't use field sobriety tests here in my city (Northern Ontario, Canada). We form our grounds that a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol by observing the movements and functioning of the person. I would pay close attention to the way they walk from their car to mine, how they stand (still or the drunk wobble), their eyes (glassy, bloodshot) the odour of an alcoholic beverage on their breath, their speech (slurred, repetitive phrases). This is usually plenty for form grounds to make an arrest. I always wondered why the police you see on tv (usually American ) make obviously drunk people walk, touch their nose, when they must know that they are impaired, without the tests. (It certainly helps your case though if you can show the judge your cruiser cam of this.) Part of the problem we have found here is that you would have to caution the person about the tests and tell them that they don't have to do them.

Answer 4

I do not think the test are fair ! Their minds are made up before they give it to you . It`s just a routine to humiliate you in front of other people. I have passed test and still be taken in and have failed test on account of a weak eye . No two test givers see the result the same in most cases . The only safe and sure test is a blood test . All the rest have too much room for error and misuse!

Answer 5

Until we get better tech out there for our law enforcement officers to use, they're the best we have. It's the only way to keep fools who drive stoned or drunk off the road and behind bars where they belong.

Fair or not, think about this, would you rather they simply allowed people to drive a car when they can barely walk?

Answer 6

I've failed field sobriety tests twice, been taken to the station, only to have the machine vindicate me. in one of those cases I was still charged, on the officers "judgement" My lawyer made short work of it, but I still had to hire one, and it cost me 500 bucks for one court appearance. this was after one beer in both cases. and, at the time i weighed close to 300 pounds. there's no way I was legally drunk. hell, i didn't even have a buzz.
but the field test was used.

I can't walk a straight line when sober.

Answer 7

I think that if you don't use alcohol before you drive, and don't drive like a nutcase, you will have nothing to worry about. The rest is irrelevant.