October 27, 2015

DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Preliminary Breath Testing (PBT)

DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Preliminary Breath Testing (PBT)
3-17
D. Preliminary Breath Testing
Description
Many states have enacted preliminary breath testing (PBT) laws. These laws permit a
police officer to request a driver suspected of DWI to submit to a roadside breath test
prior to arrest. PBT laws vary significantly from one state to another. A typical statute
reads as follows:
“When an officer has reason to believe from the manner in which a person is operating
or has operated a motor vehicle that the person has or may have committed the offense
of operating while under the influence, the officer may request that person to provide a
sample of breath for a preliminary test of the alcohol content of the blood using a device
approved for this purpose.”
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
PBT Application
3-18
Application
PBT results are used to assist in determining whether an arrest should be made. The
results usually are not admissible as substantive evidence against the defendant in
court. However, PBT laws may provide statutory or administrative penalties if the driver
refuses to submit to the test. These penalties may include license suspension, fines or
other sanctions.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 13 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Landmark court decisions relevant to the
admissibility of Standardized Field
Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) and Horizontal
Gaze Nystagmus (HGN)
Challenges based on:
Scientific validity and reliability
Relationship of HGN to specific BAC level
Officer training, experience, and application
Case Law Reviews
3-19
E. Case Law Reviews
The following cases are landmark court decisions relevant to the admissibility of
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN).
Challenges to the admissibility have been based on (1) scientific validity and reliability;
(2) relationship of HGN to specific BAC level; and (3) officer training, experience, and
application.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 14 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
State v. Blake
3-20
State versus Blake (718 P.2d 171 Arizona
1986) is the landmark case
The Blake case established a very
important precedent in Arizona.
Emphasize that Blake is the landmark case.
State versus Blake (718 P.2d 171 Arizona 1986)
The State of Arizona (Petitioner) vs. The Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and
for the county of Cochise, and the Hon. James L. Riles, Division III (Respondent) and
Frederick Andrew Blake (Real Party in Interest) No. 18343-PR Court of Appeals No. 2
CA-SA 0254 Cochise Co. No. 11684 April 7, 1986.
The Blake case established a very important precedent in Arizona. The trial court ruled
that the HGN test was not reliable under Frye v. United States, 293 F.2d 1013 (DC Cir.
1923) and thus could not be used as part of probable cause. The case was dismissed
by the trial court. This ruling was appealed by the state and the order of dismissal was
reversed by the court of appeals and the case was remanded for further proceedings
(7/25/85).
The appellate court decision was reviewed by the State Supreme Court. The State
Supreme Court approved the court of appeal's opinion, as modified, and vacated the
trial court's dismissal of the Blake prosecution for DWI and remanded the case for
proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.
Following is a summary of the facts of the case and a brief overview of the appellate
court and Supreme Court opinions.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 15 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
State v. Blake (Cont.)
3-21
After the defendant was stopped for DUI,
he was given field sobriety tests
The officer also administered a
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test
SCRI researchers found that they could
determine whether a person was above
or below a .10 blood alcohol level 80% of
the time.
FACTS: After the defendant was stopped for DUI, he was given field sobriety tests on
which he did fair. The officer also administered a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN)
test and estimated that defendant's blood alcohol content was .17. The intoxilyzer
showed a .163 reading. At the motion to suppress, the state presented testimony from
the SCRI project director which originally researched the HGN test.
SCRI researchers found that they could determine whether a person was above or
below a .10 blood alcohol level 80% of the time. Finnish researchers had reached the
same results. The project director testified that HGN has been accepted by various
researchers, various police agencies and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The police officer who helped develop and standardize HGN testified
about his field experience with HGN and his work in the research on HGN. The officer
testified that HGN was particularly useful in detecting drivers who had over .10 alcohol
in their blood who would otherwise pass the field sobriety tests. The Arizona officer who
administers HGN training testified that experienced drinkers with .13 or .14 reading
could pass the other field sobriety tests and evade arrest. He testified that to be certified
for HGN the officer had to perform 35 practice tests and then had to pass an exam
where they must determine the blood alcohol level of subjects within .02 four out of five
times.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 16 of 29
The training officer also testified that the officer must continue to use the test regularly in
the field and should be evaluated to make sure the officer maintains his proficiency.
The arresting officer testified that he was certified as an HGN specialist. The arresting
officer testified without HGN results, he did not think he had probable cause to arrest the
defendant. The trial court ruled that the HGN test was not reliable under Frye v. United
States and thus could not be used as part of probable cause. Accordingly, the court
dismissed the prosecution. The STATE appealed this decision.
ISSUE: Did the trial court err in excluding the HGN evidence?
RULING: Yes, "We conclude that the record shows not only that the HGN is sufficiently
reliable to provide probable cause for arrest, but that with the proper foundation as to
the expertise of the officer administering it, testimony concerning the administration of
the test and its results is admissible at trial. The record shows that the HGN test has
gained general acceptance in the field in which it belongs." The court went on to say
that they were unable to rule on whether the results of this particular HGN test would be
admissible because the only evidence about the officer's proficiency was his testimony
that he was certified. The court of appeals noted that the officer kept a log of when he
administered the test and said, "This log would be useful if it demonstrated that (the
arresting officer) was as proficient in the field as he was on the examination." The order
of dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Mr. Blake sought review of the court of appeals opinion and it was granted by the
Arizona Supreme Court.
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
State v. Blake (Cont.)
3-22
The trial court ruled that the HGN test
was not reliable under Frye v. United
States and thus could not be used as part
of probable cause. Accordingly, the court
dismissed the prosecution. The STATE
appealed this decision.
Did the trial court err in excluding the
HGN evidence?
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
State v. Blake (Cont.)
3-22
The trial court ruled that the HGN test
was not reliable under Frye v. United
States and thus could not be used as part
of probable cause. Accordingly, the court
dismissed the prosecution. The STATE
appealed this decision.
Did the trial court err in excluding the
HGN evidence?
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 17 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Is the HGN Test
Sufficiently Reliable?
3-23
ISSUES: Whether the HGN test is sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to
arrest for DWI
Whether HGN test results are sufficiently reliable to be introduced in evidence at trial.
CONCLUSION: "We find that the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test properly
administered by a trained police officer is sufficiently reliable to be a factor in
establishing probable cause to arrest a driver for violating A.R.S.28-692(B). We further
find that the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test satisfies the Frye test for reliability and
may be admitted in evidence to corroborate or attack, but not to quantify, the chemical
analysis of the accused's blood alcohol content. It may not be used to establish the
accused's level of blood alcohol in the absence of a chemical analysis showing the
proscribed level in the accused's blood, breath or urine. In subsection (A) prosecutions it
is admissible, as is other evidence of defendant's behavior, to prove that he was under
the influence."
We approve the court of appeals' opinion, as modified, vacate the trial court's dismissal
of the Blake prosecution for violation of A.R.S.28-792(B), and remand for proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 18 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Arresting officer attempted to testify to
his opinion concerning the subject's BAC
based solely on the angle of onset of
HGN
Court held Officer was not:
Entitled to testify as a lay or expert witness
about HGN
Formally or properly trained in HGN
People v. Loomis
3-24
A detailed analysis of the facts reviewed by the Supreme Court is contained in the
opinion PEOPLE vs. LOOMIS (California, 1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 1, 203 Cal. Rptr. 767
(Cal. Super. 1984).
The arresting officer attempted to testify to his opinion concerning the subject's BAC, in
quantitative terms, based solely on the angle of onset of HGN. The subject had refused
to submit to a chemical test. The court held that the officer was not entitled to testify as
either a lay or expert witness about HGN, or to give his opinion about the defendant's
BAC. The court held that HGN is a new form of scientific evidence that will be allowed
only when there is a preliminary showing of its general acceptance in the scientific
community. Moreover, it was clear from the officer's testimony that he had not been
formally or properly trained in HGN, and didn't really understand how the test is to be
given.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 19 of 29Source: DWI Detection and
Standardized Field
Sobriety Testing

No comments: