A police officer’s allegations alone aren’t enough to prove that a crime occurred. In scenarios involving allegations of drunk driving, there needs to be some corroborating evidence.
Sometimes, that evidence comes in the form of camera footage of someone driving poorly. Other times, the necessary evidence is a chemical breath test that shows someone is over the legal limit. Oftentimes, there might be field sobriety test results contributing to the state’s case against a particular criminal defendant. Field sobriety testing involves an officer instructing someone to perform a series of physical tasks to demonstrate their sobriety or impairment. Are field sobriety tests generally reliable sources of evidence in drunk driving cases?
Only certain tests are reliable
Police officers generally need to administer the three standardized field sobriety tests if they want the evidence they collect to hold up in court. Having someone walk in a straight line, turn and walk back is one test. Having someone balance on one leg is another. Instructing someone to follow a moving object with their eyes only to look for a muscular twitch in the eyes is the third standardized field sobriety test. If officers administered tests of their own creation, then those test results may not hold up under scrutiny in a criminal trial.
Video footage of tests is usually necessary
Police officers, like all other people, have fallible memories. They may make mistakes where they confuse one person with another or exaggerate elements of a memory over time. To prevent memory issues from compromising the criminal justice system, prosecutors usually rely on video footage of field sobriety tests rather than officer testimony. If officers performed the test in the location where their cruiser did not capture footage with the dashboard camera, then the field sobriety test results may have minimal impact on someone’s drunk driving trial.
Contesting field sobriety test results could be an important part of an overall drunk driving defense strategy. Motorists who respond assertively to allegations of impairment may be able to avoid the worst penalties the courts might otherwise impose.