Use of expert witness in FST and CBT results

[MJStevenson18]

GA

In the state of Georgia, if a person is arrested for suspicion of DUI and takes FST and CBT which both result as negatives does an expert witness have to present the results, if so, do you as the accused, have to pay for the expert witness, at all, upfront or on decision of guilt or innocence? The person is not arrested for reckless endangerment but rather as a DUI or suspicion of DUI. With that said, can a police officer in the state of Georgia arrest someone for suspicion of DUI even if it results in a negative for tests?

 

[LdiJ]

GA

In the state of Georgia, if a person is arrested for suspicion of DUI and takes FST and CBT which both result as negatives does an expert witness have to present the results, if so, do you as the accused, have to pay for the expert witness, at all, upfront or on decision of guilt or innocence? The person is not arrested for reckless endangerment but rather as a DUI or suspicion of DUI. With that said, can a police officer in the state of Georgia arrest someone for suspicion of DUI even if it results in a negative for tests?

The key isn't so much whether or not an arrest was made. The key is whether or not the DA chooses to prosecute the case.

 

[FlyingRon]

I'm missing the scenario here. Has this event actually happened? An arrest requires probable cause (usually FSTs are used for this, but other observations such as odor, bloodshot eyes, slurred speach can support this). The CBT usually occurs subseqeunt to arrest.

If the person is actually charged with DUI, then he needs an attorney. The attorney can certainly challenge if the FSTs were valid and exclude that evidence if they were (I've seen it happen). Positive CBT results can also be challenged. Note that the .08% "limit" is only the point where the state can presume intoxication without further indications. A lower score can support a charge in light of other evidence. Of course, the lawyer is also going to look at whether the STOP itself was valid (needs articulable reasonable suspicion a crime has occurred) and whether the arrest had probable cause.

 

[HighwayMan]

...even if it results in a negative for tests?

I don't know what you mean by that. While I have no idea what CBT is, there is really no "pass/fail" for the SFSTs.

 

[quincy]

... I have no idea what CBT is ...

A CBT is a chemical breath test.

From the Georgia Code, Section 40-6-392, chemical tests for alcohol or drugs in blood: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-6/article-15/40-6-392

 

[HighwayMan]

A CBT is a chemical breath test.

From the Georgia Code, Section 40-6-392, chemical tests for alcohol or drugs in blood: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-6/article-15/40-6-392

Thank you quincy, I've never heard it phrased that way - we usually use "breath test".

 

[HighwayMan]

takes FST with ... result as negatives...

How do you come up with that? As I said there is no definitive pass/fail for the SFSTs and most of the time the test taker either has no idea how they fared or thinks they "passed" with flying colors.

One can certainly be convicted of DUI by faring poorly on the SFSTs and "passing" the breath test. It depends upon the officer's observations and the totality of the circumstances.

 

[jdbofky]

How do you come up with that? As I said there is no definitive pass/fail for the SFSTs and most of the time the test taker either has no idea how they fared or thinks they "passed" with flying colors.

One can certainly be convicted of DUI by faring poorly on the SFSTs and "passing" the breath test. It depends upon the officer's observations and the totality of the circumstances.

Field sobriety exercises have cues associated with them that police officers watch for in assessing performance. HGN, for example has 6 cues associated with the exercise. A person may exhibit 0 through 6 cues. A sober person might well step off the line when performing the walk-and-turn. That is not conclusive. Each exercise either dispels or confirms an officer's probable cause. A person might blow .06 on a breath test and yet be guilty of DUI if .06 impairs their normal faculties in a material way such that their ability to drive is impaired. It would be difficult to prove impairment with a blow of .00 absent blood testing for other substances regardless of performance on the field sobriety exercises. In many states a blow of .08 or higher is presumptive proof of impairment and nothing else is required.

Expert testimony is not required because people observe and experience the effects of alcohol consumption in every day life. It is a matter of common experience. In my state, Florida, an expert is required to give a scientific interpretation to an exercise, such as HGN, if the interpretation is based on science and not lay observations.

 

[HighwayMan]

Field sobriety exercises have cues associated with them...

I think you mean "clues".

Or maybe it's that Florida accent.

 

[jdbofky]

I think you mean "clues".

Or maybe it's that Florida accent.

There are both clues and cues. Cues are the standardized markers the NHTSA has established. Clues are other non-standardized observations that an officer may also note. Field sobriety exercises are nationally standardized exercises.

 

[CdwJava]

As a note, the SFST research and battery provides for both "cues" AND "clues". A "cue" is a prompt to do something, while a "clue" is something that leads to a solution or a conclusion. NHTSA research has identified something like 24 "cues" associated to the high probability of impaired driving. The more "cues" observed, the greater the likelihood of impairment, such as driving without headlights on, stopping some distance prior to the limit line, etc. These cues tend to be actions that are not, by themselves, an indicator of impairment but tend to lead someone to that conclusion. A "clue" is something more directly associated with impairment, such as the odor of alcohol emanating from a person, bloodshot & watery eyes, unsteady gait, etc.

There is more to it, but, suffice it to way that there ARE both cues AND clues in the DUI evaluation process.