Field Sobriety Tests are often a critical part of the evidence in a DUI
trial. It is important to establish to a jury that these are not a normal
activity, and they have little to do with being able to safely operate a car.
It's also true that any alleged scientific correlation between performing these
tests and being impaired is not valid if the tests aren't administered
correctly.
You administered certain roadside exercises to Mr. ________.
You are a licensed driver.
You took a driving test to get your license.
You took a vision test.
In order to get your license, you weren’t asked to walk steps on a line.
In order to get your license, you weren’t asked to stand on one leg for a
count to 30.
In order to get your license, you weren’t asked to shut your eyes, tilt
your head back, and touch your nose.
You don’t have to be able to do any of these things in order to drive a
car.
Would you agree that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
or NHTSA, is an authoritative source of information regarding field sobriety
testing?
Was your field sobriety training done pursuant to standards and
procedures established by the national highway traffic safety
administration?
Would you agree that the instructional, administrative, and scoring
protocol, as defined by NHTSA with respect to field sobriety tests, must be
followed in order to assure the validity of your test results?
We can’t subject your administration of these roadside exercises to the
objective scrutiny of peer review in the scientific community, can we
officer?
Your experience is totally unverifiable, isn’t it?
