Field Sobriety Tests are a widely used practice by officers and accepted as evidence at trial in determining whether or not a driver is impaired by alcohol or drugs. Essentially, these tests ensure that officers have enough probable cause to arrest an individual for a DUI. These types of tests usually precede Breathalyzer tests. Officer’s record an individuals performance on three different types of roadside tests which is later used as evidence in DUI cases. The Standardized Field Sobriety Test endorsed by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration consists of the horizontal gaze nystagmnus (HGN), walk-and-turn (WAT) and one-leg stand (OLS). These tests allow an officer to observe an individual’s balance, attention level, and physical ability to determine an individual’s level of impairment. For instance, the HGN test measures the involuntary jerking of an individual’s eye, which can be exacerbated if a person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests are both divided attention tests. They measure coordination and one’s ability to follow specific direction.
Around four in the morning, a police officer conducted a traffic stop for defendant who was speeding. When the officer approached the window of the vehicle to issue the citation, he could smell alcohol and observed the defendant's eyes to be glass and bloodshot. To request that a driver submit to field sobriety tests, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is driving under the influence. The officer first performed an HGN test of Defendant's eyes. He observed that they were "bouncing everywhere" meaning that he had consumed an unlawful amount of alcohol before driving. After conducting the HGN test, the officer asked the defendant to submit to additional field sobriety exercises. The defendant refused further sobriety testing and he was arrested for a DUI.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of the field sobriety testing and his statements. Defendant argued that the smell of alcohol and his bloodshot eyes were insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to conduct any field sobriety testing. The court held that the observations of the officer provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to ask the Defendant to submit to further field sobriety tests to either confirm or deny whether there was probable cause for a DUI arrest.
"A police officer observed defendant driving his car southbound in the northbound lane. The officer asked defendant to perform three field sobriety exercises. When defendant had much difficulty performing the exercises, the officer concluded that defendant was doubtlessly drunk, that it was unsafe for him to be driving, and that he should be arrested. After retrial upon a reversal and remand for failing to allow a valid peremptory challenge of a juror, the trial court entered another judgment convicting defendant of driving under the influence. Defendant appealed again. The court affirmed, holding that the admission of prerelease breath alcohol test results was harmless error. Because the arresting officer clearly qualified as an expert on field sobriety exercises, there was nothing improper in describing the exercises he conducted as "tests." Moreover, defendant did not make any serious attempt to argue that there was insufficient evidence to convict under the impairment alternative (i.e., by showing that defendant was under the influence of alcohol to such an extent that his normal faculties were impaired). As such, it was merely harmless error to admit the breath test results."
