October 27, 2015

The Legal Environment DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing • First case decided at a State Supreme Court • HGN satisfies the Frye standards for evidence to corroborate, or attack, the issue of a subject's impairment • Frye standards are those set by the U.S. Supreme Court to govern the admissibility of "new" scientific evidence State v. Blake

Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
First case decided at a State Supreme
Court
HGN satisfies the Frye standards for
evidence to corroborate, or attack, the
issue of a subject's impairment
Frye standards are those set by the U.S.
Supreme Court to govern the
admissibility of "new" scientific evidence
State v. Blake
3-25
STATE vs. BLAKE (Arizona, 1986) 718 P.2d 171 (Arizona, 1986); see also State vs.
Superior Court of County of Cochise, 149 Ariz 269, 718 P.2d 171, 60 ALR 4th, 1103.
This is the landmark ruling on HGN because it was the first case decided at a State
Supreme Court. The Arizona Supreme Court found that HGN satisfies the Frye
standards for evidence to corroborate, or attack, the issue of a subject's impairment.
The Frye standards are those set by the U.S. Supreme Court to govern the admissibility
of "new" scientific evidence. In effect, the Arizona Supreme Court took judicial notice of
HGN, so that it is no longer necessary, in Arizona, to introduce expert scientific
testimony to secure the admissibility of HGN. However, the court did set standards
governing the training of officers who would be qualified to testify about HGN, and the
court explicitly ruled that HGN cannot be used to establish BAC quantitatively in the
absence of a chemical test.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 20 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Challenges to admissibility based on:
Scientific validity and reliability
Relationship of HGN to specific BAC level
Officer training, experience, and application
Landmark Court Decisions
Relevant to the Admissibility
of the SFSTs
3-26
The following cases are landmark court decisions relevant to the admissibility of the
SFSTs including Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus.
• Challenges to the admissibility have been based on:
• Scientific validity and reliability. (See Blake case)
• Relationship of HGN to specific BAC level. (See Loomis case)
• Officer training, experience, and application. (See Murphy case, See Homan case,
See Smith case)
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 21 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Results of a HGN test could be admitted
into evidence at a DWI trial to prove
intoxication of the driver
Not used to determine specific BAC
Officer did not have to qualify as an
expert witness because the
observations were objective in nature
and the officer needed no special
qualifications to be able to interpret the
results
State v. Murphy
3-27
STATE vs. MURPHY (451 N.W.2d 154 Iowa, 1990)
The court held that the results of a HGN test could be admitted into evidence at a DWI
trial to prove the intoxication of the driver. (Not to be used to determine specific BAC
level.) The court considered HGN to be one of the SFST's officers administer and in this
case the officer was properly trained to administer the test. The court felt that the officer
did not have to qualify as an expert witness because the observations were objective in
nature and the officer needed no special qualifications to be able to interpret the results.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 22 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
SFSTs conducted in a manner that departs
from the methods established by the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) “are inherently
unreliable”
State v. Homan
3-28
STATE v. HOMAN (732 N.E.2d 952, OHIO 2000)
This significant State Supreme Court case held that Standardized Field Sobriety Tests
(SFSTs) conducted in a manner that departs from the methods established by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) “are inherently unreliable”. The
court determined that the administration of the SFSTs, including the One leg Stand and
Walk and Turn tests, must be performed in strict compliance with the directives issued
by NHTSA.
The court concluded that because the arresting officer admitted to not having strictly
complied with established police procedure during the administration of the HGN and
Walk and Turn tests, the results of the SFSTs must be excluded. In contrast with other
court rulings, the HOMAN court found “it is well established that in field sobriety testing
even minor deviations from the standardized procedures can severely bias the results.”
This decision was based upon an older edition of this manual where an ambiguous
phrase was strictly interpreted by the court. The phrase in question only applied to the
use of SFSTs for training purposes.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 23 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
State Supreme Court:
Held a law enforcement officer may testify
to the results of field sobriety tests
(including HGN) if officer has been
adequately trained in the administration
and assessment of those field sobriety
tests, and conducted them in substantial
accordance with that training
Stated “deficiencies in the administration
of the sobriety tests go to the weight
accorded the evidence and not to its
admissibility”
Smith v. Wyoming
3-29
SMITH vs. WYOMING (11 P.3d 931 Wyoming, 2000)
The State Supreme Court held a law enforcement officer may testify to the results of
field sobriety tests (including HGN) if it is shown that the officer has been adequately
trained in the administration and assessment of those field sobriety tests, and
conducted them in substantial accordance with that training. The court further stated
“deficiencies in the administration of the sobriety tests go to the weight accorded the
evidence and not to its admissibility.”
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 24 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
HGN testing satisfies the Frye standard in
Illinois
HGN testing is one facet of field sobriety
The witness has been adequately trained,
and conducted assessment in accordance
with the training
In conjunction with other evidence, HGN
may be used as a part of the police
officer’s opinion that the subject [was]
under the influence and impaired”
People v. McKown
3-30
PEOPLE v. MCKOWN, (226 Ill. 2d 245 ILLINOIS 2007).
In February 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion indicating that HGN
satisfies the Frye standard. This decision came upon a review of a fully litigated Frye
hearing on HGN at the trial court level. The Supreme Court upheld and adopted the
findings of the trial court, which are as follows: “(1) HGN testing satisfies the Frye
standard in Illinois; (2) HGN testing is but one facet of field sobriety testing and is
admissible as a factor to be considered by the trier of fact on the issue of alcohol or
drug impairment; (3) A proper foundation must include that the witness has been
adequately trained, has conducted testing and assessment in accordance with the
training, and that he administered the particular test in accordance with his training and
proper procedures; (4)[Testimony regarding] HGN testing results should be limited to
the conclusion that a “failed” test suggests that the subject may have consumed alcohol
and may [have] be[en] under the influence. There should be no attempt to correlate the
test results with any particular blood-alcohol level or range or level of intoxication; (5) In
conjunction with other evidence, HGN may be used as a part of the police officer’s
opinion that the subject [was] under the influence and impaired.” (Emphasis in original.)
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 25 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
People v. McKown (Cont.)
3-31
The officer can testify that based on the
totality of the circumstances, including
HGN, that (s)he formed the opinion that the
subject was under the influence of alcohol.
While HGN is admissible at a trial for DUI, the officer will be required to testify to the
proper foundation. First, (s)he will have to testify regarding training and experience.
That training will have to comply with the NHTSA standards, although whether that
compliance is strict or substantial is unknown at this point. Second, the officer will have
to testify as to how (s)he conducted the test on that particular occasion and will have
had to have conducted the test in accordance with NHTSA training and standards. Once
the proper foundation is met, the officer will be able to testify as to his or her
observations and that the results of the test indicated that the subject had been drinking
and may be impaired. Finally, the officer can testify that based on the totality of the
circumstances, including HGN, that (s)he formed the opinion that the subject was under
the influence of alcohol.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 26 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Seizure Case
State v. Wilkes
3-32
State v. Wilkes, (756 N.W.2d 838 Iowa 2008)
Wilkes was not originally looked at as a SFST case but rather a seizure case. However,
at the urging of the Iowa TSRP the court closely looked at the issue of SFSTs. Wilkes
claimed the State lacked probable cause to invoke implied consent pursuant to Iowa
Code section 32 1J.6. To support his argument, Wilkes argued that the officer
improperly administered the walk and turn and one leg stand tests. Even if true, any
irregularity with respect to the walk and turn and one leg stand tests has no legal
significance. The officer smelled the strong odor of alcohol on Wilkes’ breath, obtained a
concession that he had been drinking, and performed the horizontal gaze nystagmus
(HGN) test. Based on this information, the officer had an articulable suspicion to
administer a preliminary breath test (PBT) pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.5(1)(a).
The results of the PBT constituted probable cause to invoke implied consent. Iowa Code
§ 321J.6(1)(d); State v. Horton, 625 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Iowa 2001).
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 27 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
State v. Wilkes (Cont.)
3-33
In determining grounds to arrest and/or invoke implied consent, the Court reviewed
and considered the evidentiary value of all circumstances, including the defendant's
statements, officer's observations of smell of alcohol, and SFST results even where two
tests of the three SFSTs may not have been administered with textbook precision.
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Case Law Summary
3-34
TO SUMMARIZE:
The prevailing trend in court is to accept HGN as evidence of impairment, provided the
proper scientific foundation is laid. However, most courts consistently reject any attempt
to derive a quantitative estimate of BAC from HGN. Additionally, officers should
recognize the relevance of administering the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests in
accordance with the NHTSA/IACP guidelines and not significantly deviate from the
established administrative procedures.
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 28 of 29
Session 3 – The Legal Environment
Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course
QUESTIONS?
3-38
Notes:_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
HS 178 R5/13 29 of 29
Test your Knowledge
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete the following sentences.
1. The elements of the basic DWI law are:
a.
b.
c.
d.
2. If DWI is a criminal offense, the standard of proof is
3. The purpose of the implied consent law is
4. Under the implied consent law, chemical test evidence is evidence.
5. The illegal per se law makes it unlawful to
6. The PBT law permits a police officer to request a driver suspected of DWI to
7. PBT results are used to assist in determining .
8. The landmark Supreme Court case regarding HGN was .
a. O’Leary
b. Paquette
c. Blake
d. Overton

HS 178 R5/13 1 of 21Source: DWI Detection and
Standardized Field
Sobriety Testing

No comments: