In many cases, drivers are not required to take a field sobriety test, and can instead opt for a breath or chemical test. The results of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests can be significantly affected by factors unrelated to alcohol or drug use, like being anxious that they’ve been pulled over and interrogated, can ultimately incriminate the driver. Worse yet, The court tends to favor FST results, despite their unreliability for detecting intoxication. Uneven surfaces, poor lighting, or bad weather can make it harder for anyone to complete the tests successfully. Despite this, officers often do not account for these conditions, and instead use it as an excuse to search the driver’s vehicle or arrest them.
Cincinnati Lawyer for Defeating Standardized Field Sobriety Tests
When someone is accused of driving under the influence based on the results of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), talking with a Cincinnati OWI lawyer immediately is critical. The Wieczorek Law Firm, led by a former Ohio prosecuting attorney with over 16 years of experience, clarifies which types of tests are used, penalties for failing these tests, defenses to OWI charges, as well as how a skilled drunk driving offense attorney can help accused individuals avoid convictions.
Overview of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests in Ohio
- Standardized Field Sobriety Testing under Ohio Law
- Refusing an SFST
- Officer Bias
- How SFSTs Differ from Drug-Related Impairment
- Additional Resources
- Hire an Attorney for OVI Defense in Hamilton County, OH
Standardized Field Sobriety Testing under Ohio Law
Under Ohio Revised Code Section 4511.19, Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence (OVI) encompasses driving while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are often used to support OVI charges. Officers rely on these tests to observe indicators like balance, the ability to follow instructions, or involuntary eye movements.
In Ohio, the administration and training for Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are governed by Rule 4501:4-1-01 of the Ohio Administrative Code. This law outlines the requirements for law enforcement training in SFSTs, including the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn, and One-Leg Stand tests.
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test
The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test evaluates involuntary eye movements that occur naturally when a person’s gaze shifts to the side. This movement, referred to as nystagmus, can become more pronounced when a person is impaired by alcohol or certain drugs. During the test, the officer instructs the individual to follow a small object, such as a pen or flashlight, with their eyes without moving their head. The officer moves the stimulus horizontally in front of the individual, observing for three key indicators in each eye:
- Smooth Pursuit: The officer checks if the eye moves smoothly while tracking the stimulus. Impaired individuals may show jerky or irregular movements instead.
- Distinct Nystagmus at Maximum Deviation: The officer observes the eye when it is held at its farthest point to the side. Clear and sustained jerking at this position is a sign of impairment.
- Onset of Nystagmus Before 45 Degrees: If the eye begins jerking before it reaches a 45-degree angle from the center, it indicates a higher level of impairment.
The HGN test is highly reliable because nystagmus cannot be consciously controlled by the individual being tested. However, certain medical conditions or medications could also influence the results, requiring officers to consider the context.
Walk-and-Turn (WAT) Test
The Walk-and-Turn (WAT) test is a divided attention test that assesses a person’s ability to follow instructions, maintain balance, and perform coordinated movements. It mimics the kind of mental and physical tasks required for safe driving, such as walking in a straight line and maintaining focus.
In this test, the individual is instructed to take nine heel-to-toe steps along a straight line, turn on one foot, and take nine heel-to-toe steps back along the same line. Before beginning, the person must stand with one foot in front of the other while listening to the officer’s instructions, which itself requires balance and focus.
The officer looks for specific signs of impairment, including:
- Failing to keep balance while listening to instructions.
- Starting before being told to begin.
- Stepping off the line.
- Using arms to maintain balance.
- Taking the wrong number of steps.
- Failing to walk heel-to-toe on each step.
- Turning improperly (e.g., stumbling or not pivoting as instructed).
This test challenges motor skills, balance, and the ability to multitask—all of which are often compromised when a person is impaired by alcohol or drugs. However, some people are just naturally clumsy. So while the walking test can be used as one indicator for impairment, some people will fail outright, while others can complete the test perfectly, despite being intoxicated.
One-Leg Stand (OLS) Test
The One-Leg Stand (OLS) test measures a person’s ability to maintain balance, focus, and coordination under challenging conditions. The individual is instructed to stand on one leg while raising the other foot about six inches off the ground. While doing so, they are asked to count aloud in a steady sequence (e.g., “one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two”) until the officer instructs them to stop, typically after 30 seconds.
The officer observes for signs of impairment, such as:
- Swaying while trying to balance.
- Using arms for support or balance.
- Hopping to maintain stability.
- Putting the raised foot down prematurely.
This test combines physical coordination with cognitive focus, as the individual must simultaneously maintain balance and count aloud. Impairment can make it difficult to perform both tasks at once, revealing signs of diminished motor control and attention.
Failing an SFST
The penalties for failing SFSTs typically lead to charges for operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI), as outlined in Ohio Revised Code Section 4511.19. These penalties vary depending on whether it is a first, second, or subsequent offense.
For a first-time OVI offense, penalties may include a mandatory jail term of three days, fines ranging from $375 to $1,075, and a license suspension of six months to three years. A second offense within 10 years can result in a mandatory jail term of 10 days, higher fines, and a longer license suspension.
For high-tier offenses, where the individual has a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.17% or higher, enhanced penalties apply. These may include longer mandatory jail terms and additional fines. Repeat offenders face escalating consequences, including vehicle immobilization, mandatory ignition interlock devices, and permanent license revocation in extreme cases.
Arguments against SFSTs
Improper Administration of SFSTs
Ohio law requires officers to administer SFSTs according to strict protocols established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). If an officer fails to explain instructions clearly, conducts the tests on uneven ground, or otherwise deviates from the guidelines, the evidence provided by the test can be thrown out.
Medical Conditions or Physical Limitations
Defendants with medical issues such as vertigo, joint injuries, or neurological disorders may display symptoms that mimic impairment during SFSTs. An attorney can present medical records and expert testimony to show that these factors, not intoxication, caused the observed behaviors. In addition, fatigue, nervousness, or temporary physical conditions unrelated to impairment can impact SFST performance. Documenting these factors can provide a plausible explanation for apparent failures during the tests.
Environmental Conditions
Environmental factors such as poor lighting, inclement weather, or uneven surfaces can significantly impact SFST performance.
Lack of Reasonable Suspicion
For an OVI arrest to be valid, the officer must have had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and administer SFSTs. If the stop was based on vague or unjustified reasoning, the evidence gathered may be deemed inadmissible.
Video Evidence Discrepancy
Body or dash camera footage often provides crucial evidence in SFST cases. A skilled attorney can identify inconsistencies between the officer’s account and the video, potentially undermining the prosecution’s case.
Officer’s Training and Certification
Ohio’s administrative rules mandate that officers conducting SFSTs be certified and adequately trained. If the arresting officer lacks proper credentials or demonstrates unfamiliarity with testing procedures, their testimony and the results may be discredited.
Refusing an SFST
While individuals have do have the right to refuse these tests, their refusal may be presented in court as evidence of guilt. Strictly speaking, however, refusing to take an SFTS falls under the fourth amendment right against self-incrimination, though the court may view the matter differently, even if instructed. Additionally, refusing SFSTs do not prevent an officer from arresting someone based on other observations, such as erratic driving or slurred speech.
It’s important to note that refusing SFSTs is different from refusing a chemical test like a breathalyzer, which carries automatic administrative penalties, including license suspension. Unlike chemical or breath tests, SFSTs are not a requirement for drivers, though many police officers seem to believe they are. SFSTs are often used as evidence to require a breath test.
The police must inform you of the consequences of refusing an SFST.
How Accurate are SFSTs?
SFSTs are designed to help officers identify impairment, but they are not foolproof. Studies show that while SFSTs are fairly reliable, their accuracy depends heavily on proper administration and interpretation by the officer. For instance, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test is considered the most reliable, with an accuracy rate of about 77%, while the Walk-and-Turn and One-Leg Stand tests have lower reliability rates of approximately 68% and 65%, respectively.
Officer Bias
Officer bias can significantly impact SFST results, as these tests rely on subjective observations. An officer who has already formed the belief that a driver is impaired may interpret normal behaviors as signs of intoxication. For example, minor balance issues caused by anxiety or nerves might be misread as clues of impairment.
Body and dash camera footage can be essential in highlighting inconsistencies between the officer’s report and what actually occurred during the test. Defense attorneys often scrutinize an officer’s training, experience, and credibility to identify potential bias or errors in judgment.
How SFSTs Differ from Drug-Related Impairment
SFSTs are primarily designed to detect alcohol impairment, but they are also used in drug-related cases. However, drug impairment can be harder to identify, as different substances produce varying effects. For example, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test may not detect impairment from marijuana or other drugs.
In drug-related cases, officers may rely on Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training or Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) to evaluate impairment. These evaluations involve additional steps, such as checking pupil size and administering a series of psychophysical tests.
Additional Resources
Ohio Revised Code Rule 4501:4-1-01 | Definitions – This source provides definitions and guidelines for Ohio law enforcement agencies regarding Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). It includes legal definitions of key terms like “law enforcement training” and outlines the state’s rules for SFST administration and officer training protocols.
NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Refresher Manual – This document is the NHTSA’s official SFST Refresher Training Manual, which explains how officers should administer and evaluate SFSTs. It includes detailed guidance on conducting tests like the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) and Walk-and-Turn. The manual also provides educational resources for officers, focusing on consistency and best practices for roadside impairment detection.
Ohio State Highway Patrol OVI Detection Training – This page from the Ohio State Highway Patrol outlines its OVI Detection & Standardized Field Sobriety course. It includes information on the course format, objectives, and prerequisites for participants. The course emphasizes practical training for law enforcement officers to detect and process drivers suspected of impairment, including details about SFST procedures and courtroom preparation.
Hire an Attorney for OVI Defense in Hamilton County, OH
If you or someone you know has been charged with operating under the influence (OVI) after submitting to, or being coerced into, an SFST, you need to contact The Wiczorek Law Firm today. Mark Wieczorek is an experienced Cincinnati criminal defense attorney and has taken the exact same SFST classes as law enforcement officers. He is able to assess your case and determine where the strengths and weaknesses lie in regards to the administration of the SFTS.
Mark Wieczorek serves Hamilton County and the major Cincinnati metropolitan area. Call (513) 317-5987 today for a free consultation, or fill out our online contact form.