Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) are often pivotal in a DWI (Driving While Impaired) prosecution in Minneapolis. For individuals who have submitted to chemical testing, FST results frequently establish the probable cause necessary for such tests. Probable cause is a somewhat vague legal standard, falling between reasonable suspicion and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases where a chemical sample was not provided, the prosecution often relies on FSTs as circumstantial evidence of intoxication.
It’s crucial to understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has only standardized and approved three FSTs. While Minnesota recognizes these three, there is a fourth test commonly used. Before delving into these standardized tests, let’s address some unapproved FSTs that law enforcement officers frequently administer in Minneapolis and across Minnesota.
Unapproved Field Sobriety Tests: What Minneapolis Drivers Need to Know
One of the most frequently used unapproved FSTs is the Romberg Balance Test, often referred to as the head-back, arms-extended test. Developed in the 1800s by Moritz Romberg, this test was purported to challenge balance by removing three key elements:
- Proprioception: Your awareness of your body’s position in space.
- Vision: Visual cues for balance.
- Vestibular function: Your inner ear’s sense of head position and movement.
The problem with the Romberg test, and other unapproved tests, is their lack of scientific validity in determining impairment due to alcohol. Furthermore, explaining complex concepts like proprioception and vestibular function to a jury can be challenging for law enforcement. This can lead jurors to believe that the prosecution is exaggerating or even fabricating evidence. For a Minneapolis Dwi Lawyer, highlighting the unscientific nature of these tests is a key defense strategy.
Other examples of unapproved tests include reciting a portion of the alphabet backwards or answering trick questions, such as “In what year were you born?”. These tests have no established scientific basis for determining alcohol impairment.
A concerning tactic sometimes employed by officers is the use of unapproved tests to intentionally fatigue individuals both physically and mentally before administering the standardized FSTs.
It’s vital to know that you have the right to refuse to perform these unapproved tests. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects not only your right to remain silent but also the right to not incriminate yourself through physical actions. You can assert your Fifth Amendment rights and decline to participate in unapproved field sobriety tests. A Minneapolis DWI lawyer can advise you on how to exercise these rights.
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests in Minneapolis DWI Cases
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test
The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test is one of the three NHTSA-approved FSTs. During this eye test, officers instruct individuals to follow a moving object, such as a fingertip or pen, with their eyes only, without moving their head. The officer is observing for nystagmus, which are involuntary jerking movements of the pupils. The presence of nystagmus at certain angles of gaze is often interpreted as an indicator of alcohol impairment.
However, it is critical to understand that alcohol is not the sole cause of nystagmus. Numerous other conditions and factors can cause nystagmus, and alcohol is not even the most common cause. Many people have mild nystagmus without even knowing it.
Moreover, the accuracy of the HGN test is contingent upon controlled conditions. Roadside HGN tests are far from controlled environments. Factors such as flashing police car lights can induce flicker vertigo, a medical condition that can mimic nystagmus. Environmental distractions and the lack of a controlled setting can significantly compromise the reliability of the HGN test. A skilled Minneapolis DWI lawyer will scrutinize the administration of the HGN test and challenge its validity based on these factors.
Walk and Turn (WAT) Test
The Walk and Turn (WAT) test is perhaps the most recognizable standardized FST. In this test, individuals are instructed to walk heel-to-toe in a straight line for nine steps, turn in a prescribed manner, and return heel-to-toe along the same line. During the WAT test, officers look for “clues” of impairment, such as:
- Starting before instructed
- Using arms for balance
- Stumbling or swaying
- Taking an incorrect number of steps
- Stepping off the line
- Not walking heel-to-toe
- Stopping prematurely
Environmental conditions often play a significant role in the WAT test’s outcome. Walking heel-to-toe along a painted line in a parking lot is considerably easier than on an uneven shoulder of a road or an imaginary line. Darkness, the type of footwear, and the slope of the surface all impact performance.
Furthermore, even if an officer observes these clues, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any perceived “failure” on the WAT test was due to alcohol intoxication and not due to other factors such as nervousness, fatigue, pre-existing medical conditions, or simply clumsiness. A Minneapolis DWI lawyer will rigorously challenge whether the WAT test results accurately reflect impairment or were influenced by other factors.
One-Leg Stand (OLS) Test
Similar to the WAT, the One-Leg Stand (OLS) test is a “divided attention” test designed to assess both physical balance and mental acuity simultaneously. The theory behind the OLS is that alcohol impairment hinders the ability to multitask in this manner.
For the OLS test, individuals are instructed to raise one leg approximately six inches off the ground, keeping it elevated for roughly thirty seconds while counting aloud. Officers look for clues of intoxication including:
- Using arms for balance
- Swaying while balancing
- Hopping to maintain balance
- Putting the foot down
- Raising or lowering the foot
- Failure to count aloud accurately
- Starting or stopping prematurely
Individuals with any mobility limitations, injuries, or even minor balance issues will find the OLS test exceptionally challenging, regardless of sobriety.
It is also important to note that officers often testify that an individual “failed” the test regardless of their actual performance. Officers are trained to identify clues of impairment and may interpret any deviation from perfect execution as a failure. However, ultimately, it is the jury that decides whether an individual failed the test, and their interpretation is the only one that truly matters in a DWI case. A Minneapolis DWI lawyer will effectively present evidence and arguments to challenge the officer’s subjective interpretation of the OLS test.
Portable Breathalyzer Tests: Preliminary Breath Tests (PBTs)
In most states, the standardized FST battery consists of only the three tests discussed above. Minnesota is one of the few states that includes a fourth test: the portable breathalyzer, often referred to as a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT). While larger breathalyzer devices used at police stations have their own set of potential inaccuracies, portable breathalyzers are even less reliable.
Portable breathalyzers are particularly sensitive to temperature fluctuations. Minneapolis weather is known for its rapid and unpredictable changes, especially during certain seasons. If a PBT device is not properly calibrated to the ambient air temperature at the time of testing, the results can be significantly inaccurate and potentially invalid. A Minneapolis DWI lawyer will investigate the calibration and maintenance records of any PBT device used in your case to challenge its accuracy.
Contact a Minneapolis DWI Lawyer to Challenge FST Results
If you have been arrested for DWI in Minneapolis, it is imperative to understand that Field Sobriety Test results are not infallible. There are numerous ways to challenge the validity and reliability of FSTs. A skilled Minneapolis DWI lawyer at internetlawyers.net can thoroughly analyze the circumstances of your arrest, scrutinize the administration of the FSTs, and build a strong defense to protect your rights and future. Free Case Evaluation
