Field sobriety tests in a DUID case
Field sobriety tests (commonly referred to as FSTs) are routinely conducted in California driving under the influence investigations, whether the driver is suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When testifying about the driver’s performance on these tests, the arresting officer will do his or her best to convince the judge and jury that the accused performed them improperly and displayed obvious signs of impairment. Because this type of testimony is typical in a driving under the influence of marijuana case, it is critical that the accused hires a skilled criminal defense lawyer who knows how to successfully challenge this type of evidence to help his or her client avoid the harsh penalties that are frequently imposed with this offense.
Field sobriety tests vary from state to state, from county to county and from officer to officer. Although many officers won’t tell the driver that these tests are voluntary, they are. FSTs are designed to test balance, coordination and divided attention – the skills that are deemed necessary to safely drive a car. There are a wide variety of tests that are used, but there are three that the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration have classified as “standard,” which means that there are standard approaches for their administration and evaluation. These three FSTs include the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, which is an eye test, the one-leg stand and the walk and turn test. The main problem with these (as well as the non-standardized tests that are frequently used, such as the finger-to-nose, finger count and the hand-pat tests) as they relate to a driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) investigation is that they were designed to test a driver impaired by alcohol, not drugs. Studies have been conducted that reveal that individuals who have used marijuana have shown impaired abilities when it comes to maintaining balance, however, illness, fatigue and nerves can also contribute to this phenomenon.
In a vigorous effort to convict the accused, the prosecutor will have the arresting officer testify about and demonstrate all of the ways that the accused didn’t perform the tests as he or she was instructed. The prosecutor will then argue that the accused displayed mental and/or physical impairment when he or she could not mentally or physically follow the simple instructions that were provided at the beginning of the FSTs. However, a savvy criminal attorney will use those exact same tests to show a lack of physical and mental impairment and will simultaneously reveal the officer’s true bias towards making an arrest. The lawyer will ask the officer to testify about the overwhelming number of things that the accused did correctly when performing these tests, pointing out for the judge and jury that the discrepancy clearly indicates mental and physical competence and that the officer was only concerned with those issues that pointed to the driver’s guilt.
Clearly, the accused faces a tough situation when all the evidence seems to be pointing to his or her guilt. Seasoned officers and prosecutors know exactly what type of evidence to present to the judge and jury to make it seem like a suspected drugged driver is overwhelmingly guilty of driving under the influence of marijuana. The good news, however, is that a seasoned DUI defense attorney is just as capable as challenging this evidence to show that not only did the driver display signs that showed that he or she was perfectly capable of driving safely but that the officer conducted a biased investigation, only collecting evidence that pointed to guilt, dismissing evidence that pointed to innocence. The outstanding California DUID attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm have mastered the defenses that are available to an individual facing this charge. With law offices located throughout California, including several in Los Angeles, they are easily accessible for anyone in need of unsurpassed representation. For the most trusted legal advice, contact them today for a free consultation.
