Here is an introduction to the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests administered by police to determine whether or not probable cause exists for an arrest. For more information on the standardized field sobriety tests, please click on the link to the right. If you have specific questions, contact DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1384 [318-1DUI] or at 1-888-769-5263 [888-ROWLAND].
Alcohol loves water and will move into spaces where water is the most prevalent. Fatty portions of the body have a low water content and absorb little of the alcohol, while muscular portions of the body have a high water content and absorb much alcohol. As it is carried to all parts of the body by the blood, the alcohol distributes itself in proportion to the water content of the various parts of the body. It is the presumed relationship between the amount of alcohol in the blood at a given time and the amount of alcohol which will be present in the breath which is it he basis for the theory that we can test breath and infer a BAC result.
So we can conclude that the fatter the person, the more alcohol will remain in the bloodstream which will result in a higher BAC result. The better a person’s physical fitness level, the more alcohol will be taken up by the rest of the body, the less which will be left in the blood, which results in a lower BAC. This may upset the traditional assumption that the bigger the person (i.e. the size of the container) the more alcohol that the person can consume and the lower the BAC. The “lean” to “fat” ratio, however, is an important factor.
Women have, on average, a higher percentage of body fat. Older people have, on average, a higher percentage of body fat. Does this mean that the breath tests are biased against older people and women. Based on the science the answer is, yes! The higher the percentage of body fat, the more alcohol will stay in the bloodstream, the higher the BAC which will result from the alcohol consumed, as opposed to the same amount consumed by a lean, muscular person of the same weight.
Is this fair? It will be up to your experienced DUI trial counsel to make the argument that the breath test machine unfairly evaluates the inference of alcohol in your bloodstream. Hire an OVI attorney who has the understanding of DUI science, so that he or she can make the case to the jury. This defense is not applicable in all cases and a careful and deliberate process should be used to determine if this is a valid defense in your case. Charles M. Rowland II was the first attorney in the United States to earn a Forensic Sobriety Assessment certification and the only attorney in Ohio to hold such a distinction. He has been trained in the same manner as law enforcement officers to administer and evaluate the standardized field sobriety tests as devised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and he holds certification on both the BAC DataMaster and Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test machines. If you want an attorney who has the experience to represent you and an attorney who limits his practice to the defense of the drunk driver, contact Charles M. Rowland II at (937)318-1DUI [318-1384] or 1-888-ROWLAND [888-769-5263] today.
In the past years, my office has seen an increase in the number of “drugged” driving cases we receive. While arrests for marijuana make up the vast majority of those cases, we are also seeing a dramatic rise in prescription drug cases along with traffic stops implicating harder drugs such morphine and heroin.
As with other impaired driving cases, it is vital that you know the observations that would be consistent with impairment by that drug. It is also vital that you determine if the “standardized field sobriety test” protocol adopted in Ohio is applicable in recognizing clues of impairment due to that specific drug. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter NHTSA) has been at the forefront in research to this very point. The information in this article is derived from the NHTSA Drug and Human Performance Fact Sheet.
Heroin and Morphine are both classified as narcotic analgesics. Morphine is a naturally occurring substance extracted from the seedpod of the poppy plant, Papavar somniferum. The milky resin that seeps from incisions made in the unripe seedpod is dried and powdered to make opium, which contains a number of alkaloids including morphine. Morphine concentration in opium can range from 4-21%. An alternate method of harvesting morphine is by the industrial poppy straw process of extracting alkaloids from the mature dried plant, which produces a fine brownish powder. Morphine is a schedule II controlled substance and is available in a variety of prescription forms: injectables (0.5-25 mg/mL strength); oral solutions (2-20 mg/mL); immediate and controlled release tablets and capsules (15-200 mg); and suppositories (5-30 mg). Heroin is a schedule I controlled substance and is produced from morphine by acetylation at the 3 and 6 positions. The majority of heroin sold in the U. S. originates from Southeast Asia, South America (Columbia) and Mexico. Low purity Mexican black tar heroin is most common on the West coast, while high purity Columbian heroin dominates in the East and most mid-western states.
Depending on the morphine dose and the route of administration, onset of effects is within 15-60 minutes and effects may last 4-6 hours. The duration of analgesia increases progressively with age although the degree of analgesia remains unchanged. Following heroin use, the intense euphoria lasts from 45 seconds to several minutes, peak effects last 1-2 hours, and the overall effects wear off in 3-5 hours, depending on dose.
The drug manufacturer states that morphine may impair the mental and/or physical abilities needed to perform potentially hazardous activities such as driving a car, and patients must be cautioned accordingly. Driving ability in cancer patients receiving long-term morphine analgesia (mean 209 mg daily) was considered not to be impaired by the sedative effects of morphine to an extent that accidents might occur. There were no significant differences between the morphine treated cancer patients and a control group in vigilance, concentration, motor reactions, or divided attention. A small but significant slowing of reaction time was observed at 3 hours. In several driving under the influence case reports, where the subjects tested positive for morphine and/or 6-acetylmorphine, observations included slow driving, weaving, poor vehicle control, poor coordination, slow response to stimuli, delayed reactions, difficultly in following instructions, and falling asleep at the wheel. Classification of risk depends on tolerance, dose, time of exposure, acute or chronic use, presence or absence of underlying pain, physiological status of individual, and the presence of other drugs: moderately to severely impairing in non-tolerant individuals; mild to moderately impairing if morphine is used as medication on a regular basis for chronic pain; severely impairing in acute situations if used orally, or as an intravenous medication, or if either drug is taken illicitly.
With regard to the standardized field sobriety tests, law enforcement will be required to rely on the coordination tests rather than the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Horizontal gaze nystagmus is not present; vertical gaze nystagmus is not present; lack of convergence is not present; pupil size is constricted; little or no reaction to light; pulse rate down; blood pressure down; body temperature down. Other characteristic indicators may include presence of fresh injection marks, track marks, flaccid muscle tone, droopy eyelids, drowsiness or “on-the-nod”, and low raspy slow speech.
Charles M. Rowland II has dedicated his practice to representing the accused drunk driver. His commitment includes continuous study of the forensic sciences and legal strategies that will help you win your DUI case. If you find yourself in need of a qualified and experienced Ohio OVI attorney, CONTACT Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1DUI or 1-888-ROWLAND.
In almost every DUI I have encountered, the arresting officer has indicated that the alleged drunk driver had “bloodshot” or “glassy” eyes. We challenge the officer by pointing out that he has never seen the defendant before and has no idea whether or not the defendant was engaging in activity that would logically cause bloodshot eyes (fatigue, being in a smoky environment, etc.). This would usually end cross-examination on this issue and the officer would be able to establish an important factor in deciding whether or not to remove the driver for standardized field sobriety testing. (Phase II of the NHTSA DUI Investigation) It turns out that NHTSA has conducted a study which could really help out. NHTSA has discounted these clues as prejudicial and irrelevant to determining intoxication. NHTSA released a report in 1997 that removes all of these clues as indicators of impairment. The materials provide an excellent resource for cross-examination of an arresting officer. Specifically, the report states:
“Finally, some cues were eliminated because they might be indicators more of social class than of alcohol impairment. For example, officers informed us that a flushed or red face might be an indication of a high BAC in some people. However, the cue also is characteristic of agricultural, oil field, and other outside work. Similarly, bloodshot eyes, while associated with alcohol consumption, also is a trait of many shift workers and people who must work more than one job, as well as those afflicted by allergies. A disheveled appearance similarly is open to subjective interpretation. We attempted to limit the recommendation to clear and objective post-stop behaviors.” Jack Stuster, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA Final Report, The Detection of DWI at BACs Below 0.10, DOT HS-808-654 (Sept. 1997), p. E-10.
Charles M. Rowland II has dedicated his practice to representing the accused drunk driver. His commitment includes continuous study of the forensic sciences and legal strategies that will help you win your DUI case. If you find yourself in need of a qualified and experienced Ohio OVI attorney, CONTACT Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1DUI or 1-888-ROWLAND.
The validity of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests results is dependent upon practitioners following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring. NHTSA’s SFST Student Manual states that the procedures demonstrated in the training program describe how SFSTs should be administered under ideal conditions, but that ideal conditions do not always exist in the field. Variations from ideal conditions, and deviations from the standardized procedures, might affect the evidentiary weight that should be given to test results.
Courts in several states have reviewed the admissibility of field sobriety tests that assess physical coordination and have held that deviations in the administration of the tests should not result in the suppression of test results. These courts have found that field sobriety tests, including the Walk-and-Turn and the One-Leg-Stand of the SFST battery, are simple physical dexterity exercises that can be interpreted by an officer in the field, and by others in a court of law. However, courts have ruled that the admissibility of the HGN test may be treated differently due to its “scientific nature.” For this reason, HGN results are vulnerable to challenge, and likely to be excluded by the court, if the test was not administered in strict compliance with established protocols.
Other states have been even less accommodating to deviations from the standardized procedures. In particular, the Ohio State Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers have no discretion in the administration of SFSTs. In a four-to-two decision, the Ohio State Supreme Court held in State v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2000), that Standardized Field Sobriety Tests conducted in a manner that departs from the methods established by NHTSA “are inherently unreliable” and thus inadmissible.
The SFST battery is composed of three separate tests with three independent predictive validities that range from 79 to 88 percent. Depending on the physical characteristics of the subject and roadside conditions, an officer might choose to refrain from administering the entire SFST battery, as directed by the training materials (e.g., a leg injury that might affect a person’s ability to perform the OLS test). Because an officer is permitted the discretion to withhold a test, it is reasonable to question why a deviation in the administration of one of the three tests would disqualify the entire battery. Although it is not recommended to do so under ideal conditions, the data show that accurate arrest decisions reliably can be made on the basis of two of the SFSTs, or on the basis of HGN test results, alone.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) adopted uniform procedures in 1992 to guide the training of SFST instructors and practitioners. Those standards include 24-hours of NHTSA-approved SFST instruction. The procedures for administering and interpreting SFST results can be readily learned and, generally, proficiency increases with experience. However, it is possible for SFST skills to degrade if they are not exercised regularly (e.g., during a prolonged absence from patrol work). Also, the SFST procedures have evolved since they were first developed in 1981. Modifications to the standardized procedures could result in an officer administering SFSTs according to outdated protocols.5 For these reasons, NHTSA recommends that law enforcement agencies conduct refresher training for SFST instructors and practitioners.
Dayton DUI defense attorney Charles Rowland provides complete defense to the accused drunk driver. He is certified in administering and evaluating the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and is the only Ohio attorney to be FSA certified. Visit www.DaytonDUI.com or contact 937-318-1DIU (318-1384), 1-888-ROWLAND or text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.
© 2012 Ohio DUI | OVI Blog · Proudly powered by WordPress & Green Park 2 by Cordobo.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional | Valid CSS 3
