Law Enforcement Caselaw and Statutes: 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:

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

Law Enforcement Caselaw and Statutes

October 27, 2015

No comments:

About Me

Blog Archive