- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Field sobriety tests aren't designed for you to pass.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:17 pm to Joshjrn
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:17 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Rephrase?
If you fail the field sobriety test, wouldn’t they determine your blood alcohol level before giving you a DWI?
1
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:18 pm to tigersbh
quote:
What happens if you refuse?
Not a damned thing. If you’re sober, refuse SFST and volunteer to do the breath chemical test. If you’re intoxicated, refuse both. Hire someone to deal with the admin hearing and appeal afterwards.
There is never, ever a reason to consent to SFST. Never. It’s a trap intended to mire you in a subjective morass of bullshite.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:20 pm to tigersbh
quote:
If you fail the field sobriety test, wouldn’t they determine your blood alcohol level before giving you a DWI?
They are going to ask you to take a breath chemical test regardless of pass, fail, or refusal of SFST.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:25 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
72% reliable when administered perfectly in ideal laboratory conditions.
Have you read the validation studies? Colorado and San Diego validation studies were field based. Colorado simply went back in time and compared SFST outcomes with the brac that was ultimately obtained. They found officers made the correct decision to arrest 86% of the time.
You may not like the tests but suggesting they are akin to voodoo is ludicrous.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:44 pm to lsu223
quote:
Have you read the validation studies? Colorado and San Diego validation studies were field based. Colorado simply went back in time and compared SFST outcomes with the brac that was ultimately obtained. They found officers made the correct decision to arrest 86% of the time.
A decade or so ago, but yes. Have you read any of the other studies that have been released in the subsequent three decades?
quote:
You may not like the tests but suggesting they are akin to voodoo is ludicrous.
Merely a turn of phrase. We can stick with “subjective morass” if you’d prefer.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:59 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
A decade or so ago, but yes.
You keep insisting that the only tests out there are predicted upon laboratory setting testing and that the outcome is we are dealing with a wholly unreliable. Neither is remotely true.
Arguing that the tests are faulty because you never see officers perform them correctly also doesn't discredit the science behind the test or make it voodoo. It just means that the administration is faulty. The NHTSA manual itself states that a failure to maintain substantial compliance with procedure will produce an unreliable and unvalidated result. Again, that doesn't mean that the rest itself is wrong.
I understand that you don't like the tests but you cannot deny that officers have used the tests for decades and made largely correct arresting decisions. If there was a mountain of evidence in the last 10 years that the tests are unreliable then courts would be ruling them inadmissible left and right. But they aren't.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 10:07 pm to lsu223
quote:
You keep insisting that the only tests out there are predicted upon laboratory setting testing and that the outcome is we are dealing with a wholly unreliable. Neither is remotely true. Arguing that the tests are faulty because you never see officers perform them correctly also doesn't discredit the science behind the test or make it voodoo. It just means that the administration is faulty. The NHTSA manual itself states that a failure to maintain substantial compliance with procedure will produce an unreliable and unvalidated result. Again, that doesn't mean that the rest itself is wrong. I understand that you don't like the tests but you cannot deny that officers have used the tests for decades and made largely correct arresting decisions. If there was a mountain of evidence in the last 10 years that the tests are unreliable then courts would be ruling them inadmissible left and right. But they aren't.
Their being deemed inadmissible isn’t necessary as long as SFST isn’t considered sufficient evidence on intoxication to convict, which in any reasonable courtroom, it isn’t.
But we are actually now going entirely too far afield. Let’s ignore for a moment our squabble over the validity of the test. Answer me this honestly: what percentage of LEO, in your experience and conjecture, would conduct SFST, observe fewer than all possible clues, and then throw up their hands and say “welp, didn’t hit all clues. You must be sober. Have a pleasant evening and a safe drive home!”
Hell, how many would hit zero clues and stop their investigation then and there?
Unless the answer to both is “the overwhelming majority”, my position stands: no one should ever submit to SFST. Nothing good is likely to come of it, even if dead sober.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 10:14 pm to NatalbanyTigerFan
I was always told the test is to see how you listen/follow instructions, but how well you actually do.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 10:19 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Their being deemed inadmissible isn’t necessary as long as SFST isn’t considered sufficient evidence on intoxication to convict, which in any reasonable courtroom, it isn’t.
That just isn't true. If the defense bar could have SFST's ruled admissible they would do it in a heartbeat. They are admissable because there is substantial evidence that with substantial compliance they are a reliable indicator of intoxication.
quote:
Answer me this honestly: what percentage of LEO, in your experience and conjecture, would conduct SFST, observe fewer than all possible clues, and then throw up their hands and say “welp, didn’t hit all clues. You must be sober. Have a pleasant evening and a safe drive home!”
I understand your point but the question is a little difficult to answer. If someone aces SFST's the case is never getting prosecuted. So if a driver performs well and the officer cuts them loose the likelihood is that you or I would never hear about that interaction.
quote:
Nothing good is likely to come of it, even if dead sober.
I may agree with you there. But the problem is that the refusal is going to give PC for a blood warrant and then it just comes down to the score.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 10:35 pm to lsu223
quote:
If the defense bar could have SFST's ruled admissible they would do it in a heartbeat. They are admissable because there is substantial evidence that with substantial compliance they are a reliable indicator of intoxication.
We’d get the English language ruled inadmissible out of mere convenience if we could; that’s hardly dispositive. SFST, without more, should never be sufficient to convict. Any judge who convicts on SFST alone either doesn’t understand SFST, doesn’t understand the burden of proof, or both.
quote:
I may agree with you there. But the problem is that the refusal is going to give PC for a blood warrant and then it just comes down to the score.
But that’s my point. If you’re sober, SFST isn’t going to help you. Just blow flat zeroes and move in with life. If you’re not sober, SFST isn’t going to help you. No matter what you do, you’re going to be asked to submit to a breath chemical test afterwards, regardless.
No one should submit to SFST, ever.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 4:15 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Not a damned thing. If you’re sober, refuse SFST and volunteer to do the breath chemical test. If you’re intoxicated, refuse both. Hire someone to deal with the admin hearing and appeal afterwards.
In LA, don’t you have to do the breath test, or is that not true?
Also, what is SFST?
Posted on 2/27/24 at 5:29 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
I have a friend that has 8.
quote:
your friend should be in jail.
He has been twice but for very short periods. (30 days)
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:46 am to SOLA
quote:
In LA, don’t you have to do the breath test, or is that not true?
Also, what is SFST?
By driving on a public roadway, you have given "implied consent" to take a chemical test (breath or blood, generally) if there is probable cause to believe that you were operating a vehicle while intoxicated. If you refuse the chemical test, your license will be suspended automatically. The admin process, including appeals, is beyond the scope of this thread.
The Standard Field Sobriety Test is a standardized battery of tests which exclusively includes horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn, and one legged stand, intended to determine if the subject is intoxicated. It is used to gather evidence against the subject in order to reach probable cause for both the chemical test and subsequent arrest. There is no implied consent to this battery of tests, and you can refuse submitting to it with no repercussions whatsoever, beyond annoying the officer.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:14 am to NatalbanyTigerFan
Posted on 2/27/24 at 9:00 am to RedDirtPoke
Did u watch the original video? The cop went through the instructions so fast, no human could understand
Posted on 2/27/24 at 9:03 am to lsufan1971
So the mom in that video is complaining about drinking and seatbelts with her child in the car???? Wow
Posted on 2/28/24 at 9:42 am to Lake08
Just going to leave this right here
Minister with 0.0 BAC arrested for DUI after failing field sobriety test
Minister with 0.0 BAC arrested for DUI after failing field sobriety test
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News