If you are presented with the qustion of "will you take field sobriety exercises", it is your choice. The Law Enforcement officer (LEO) will ask based on his observations, smell of alcohol, etc. You ultimately have to decide and face the chance of being arrested based on what the LEO has observed thus far. The smell of alcohol, blood shot eyes are sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety exercises.
Defendant was charged with one count of driving under the influence and one count of escape from law enforcement custody. Defendant argued that the smell of alcohol and his bloodshot eyes were insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to conduct any field sobriety testing. The trial court concluded that the police officer who conducted a traffic stop of defendant's vehicle did not possess the requisite reasonable suspicion that defendant's faculties were impaired by alcohol so as to justify the officer's request that he perform a field sobriety test. The appellate court found that the police officer testified that he observed defendant speeding at four o'clock in the morning. When he approached defendant to issue a citation, the officer smelled alcohol and observed defendant's glassy, bloodshot eyes. Upon performing the test, the officer observed that defendant's eyes were jerky and bouncy and concluded that defendant had apparently consumed "quite a bit" of alcohol. These facts provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to ask defendant to submit to further field sobriety tests to either confirm or deny whether there was probable cause for a DUI arrest.
State v. Ameqrane, 39 So. 3d 339
The court quashed a judgment that granted respondent's motion to suppress evidence of his refusal to take the field sobriety tests after being stopped on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Officer observed respondent stagger and smelled the odor of alcohol. Respondent told officer that his attorney had advised him not to take field sobriety tests and refused tests even after officer explained purpose of tests and told respondent that he could be arrested based on observations. The court held that respondent's refusal did not constitute compelled self-incrimination, and its use at trial does not offend due process principles. The court found that respondent was given a choice whether to submit to the tests or not, the tests themselves were noninvasive, painless, and commonplace, and respondent was not misled concerning the consequences of refusal. The court rejected respondent's argument that the refusal was not relevant to consciousness of guilt because there could have been an innocent explanation for his refusal. The court found that the refusal was relevant evidence given respondent's awareness of the purpose of the tests and the adverse consequences of refusal.
State v. Taylor, 648 So. 2d 701 (1995)
