Can't Pass the Field Sobriety Test

[quincy]

Quincy, I had a bulb out in my left taillight. I do not have any handicap that affects my driving. I walk normally, bike ride, play golf, etc. My balance issues are mild and caused by a prior lower back injury. I get a bit wobbly if I stand on one leg, as is required in the FST. My vision is 20/20. I simply have a natural condition that makes my eyes quiver a bit if I try to follow something close as it passes across my vision, such as an officer's finger as he performs the FST nystagmus test. Once again, I thank you all for participating, but I am going to bow out now, as I am feeling a bit uncomfortable at this point.

Thank you for the further explanation, MonkeyMan61.

Sorry if my responses made you feel uncomfortable. We all base what we write on the little that we are told and, admittedly, we all sometimes make a few (generally reasonable) assumptions to help fill in the blanks. I apologize if I filled some blanks in incorrectly.

You could speak to your physician about your recent police stop and the FST but, again, a physician can report to the DMV any patient the physician feels has a medical issue that could affect driving.

And, if you are stopped by the police in the future, and asked to exit the car for a field test, you can refuse and request a blood test instead.

 

[adjusterjack]

The loss of a driver's license (for whatever reason) can be difficult for anyone but it can be especially hard on older drivers. It can be a devastating loss of independence.

Warning: Facetiousness Ahead.


You can have my car key when you can take it from my cold dead fingers.

 

[LdiJ]

I could not pass a field sobriety test even when cold sober. I absolutely cannot stand on one leg, cannot walk a straight line, get dizzy if something passes directly in front of me like a cop's finger etc.

Yet, I can see perfectly to drive and have no trouble driving, physically. Of course, I don't drink and drive, ever. I also avoid driving at night because my night vision is poor.

 

[quincy]

I could not pass a field sobriety test even when cold sober. I absolutely cannot stand on one leg, cannot walk a straight line, get dizzy if something passes directly in front of me like a cop's finger etc.

Yet, I can see perfectly to drive and have no trouble driving, physically. Of course, I don't drink and drive, ever. I also avoid driving at night because my night vision is poor.

Here is some information on FSTs that perhaps can help individuals decide whether they should refuse the test:

http://www.fieldsobrietytests.org/index.html

Drivers should look at their own state laws to see the possible consequences for refusing tests other than the FST (like breathalyzers) because those refusals potentially could lead to immediate license suspensions.

According to the information from the link, there are some individuals who should not take the field sobriety test because their physical impairments (including weight and age) and their mental conditions (including anxiety) can affect the reliability of the tests.

 

[cbg]

Massachusetts resident here trying to post a meme comparing car keys to khakis as a response to Jack's facetiousness, but it won't post. Probably just as well.

 

[quincy]

Massachusetts resident here trying to post a meme comparing car keys to khakis as a response to Jack's facetiousness, but it won't post. Probably just as well.

Probably. Haha.

 

[MonkeyMan61]

Hi, I'm back - If you'll have me. And thanks Quincy. No worries- it's all good. I just wanted to clarify my intentions with this post. Please indulge the conversation below. It could be fun.

One of the reasons for my thread (besides my personal concerns) was to pose a legal rights question. Forget my specific incident, but let's talk generally. Suppose Jane Doe goes to play golf one day. After the round, she goes to the clubhouse with her partners for a beer or a glass of wine. She consumes one or two and then leaves after about an hour. At this point her BAC is perhaps.02 or .03 max. On the way home, she is either pulled over due to a failed signal or a bad tail light...Or perhaps she comes across a random sobriety checkpoint. The officer asks her if she's been drinking and she answers honestly. At this point he asks her to step out of the car so he can determine whether she is ok to drive (a near quote to what my officer said to me). Jane is not staggering nor is she slurring her speech (me too). She passes the alphabet test and the finger dexterity test (me too). But she has eye issues and back issues causing mild balance problems. She mentions this to the officer as he administers the balance tests and the nystagmus tests. He acknowledges what she says, but he proceeds to arrest her anyway. Once she is taken to the station, they eventually administer the BAC breathalyzer test and she blows a .02. Jane feels vindicated and asks the officer if the charge is dropped and she is free to go. He informs her that unfortunately, that's not the way it works. Since he has already arrested her based on his judgement that she failed the FST, the charge withstands and she will have to go through the legal proceedings! This results in her spending upwards of $5k in legal fees and months of worry and torment. Ultimately, the prosecutor and judge agree to drop the DUI in lieu of reckless driving, but the damage is done. What can Jane do going forward? Can she never drive without the fear that she will be wrongfully arrested again for driving impaired? How can she document her mild medical conditions that would likely cause her to fail the FST in the future? Could you imagine if she had no drink after that round of golf and still got arrested with a BAC of 0.0? This is a travesty of justice and there needs to be a solution. That is what I was hoping to find on the forum.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[quincy]

Hi, I'm back - If you'll have me. And thanks Quincy. No worries- it's all good. I just wanted to clarify my intentions with this post. Please indulge the conversation below. It could be fun.

One of the reasons for my thread (besides my personal concerns) was to pose a legal rights question. Forget my specific incident, but let's talk generally. Suppose Jane Doe goes to play golf one day. After the round, she goes to the clubhouse with her partners for a beer or a glass of wine. She consumes one or two and then leaves after about an hour. At this point her BAC is perhaps.02 or .03 max. On the way home, she is either pulled over due to a failed signal or a bad tail light...Or perhaps she comes across a random sobriety checkpoint. The officer asks her if she's been drinking and she answers honestly. At this point he asks her to step out of the car so he can determine whether she is ok to drive (a near quote to what my officer said to me). Jane is not staggering nor is she slurring her speech (me too). She passes the alphabet test and the finger dexterity test (me too). But she has eye issues and back issues causing mild balance problems. She mentions this to the officer as he administers the balance tests and the nystagmus tests. He acknowledges what she says, but he proceeds to arrest her anyway. Once she is taken to the station, they eventually administer the BAC breathalyzer test and she blows a .02. Jane feels vindicated and asks the officer if the charge is dropped and she is free to go. He informs her that unfortunately, that's not the way it works. Since he has already arrested her based on his judgement that she failed the FST, the charge withstands and she will have to go through the legal proceedings! This results in her spending upwards of $5k in legal fees and months of worry and torment. Ultimately, the prosecutor and judge agree to drop the DUI in lieu of reckless driving, but the damage is done. What can Jane do going forward? Can she never drive without the fear that she will be wrongfully arrested again for driving impaired? How can she document her mild medical conditions that would likely cause her to fail the FST in the future? Could you imagine if she had no drink after that round of golf and still got arrested with a BAC of 0.0? This is a travesty of justice and there needs to be a solution. That is what I was hoping to find on the forum.

Thanks,
Mike

Any failure on any roadside test can result in the driver’s arrest on suspicion of impaired/drunk driving. That’s the system that is in place.

Any alcohol consumption before driving can be problematic for a driver if the driver is pulled over by the police for any reason, even for only an equipment defect.

The best any driver can do is make sure their car is safe to drive (all equipment working as it should) and make sure they are safe to drive, and then follow all traffic laws.

 

[Taxing Matters]

And, if you are stopped by the police in the future, and asked to exit the car for a field test, you can refuse and request a blood test instead.

I agree with quincy, but have a little more to add. In most states, if not all, you can decline the FST without any automatic sanctions like you get with a refusal to do a blood or breath test. So if you think you cannot pass a FST even when sober, refuse to take it. The FST one of those things that rarely helps you, but certainly can hurt you. I would note, however, that in some states you do not get the choice of whether to do a breath or blood test. I've not looked at NC law on that. You might be better off, IMO, just declining the FST and see what the cop does next. If he/she is just fishing for something, the cop may just drop it there and not pursue a blood/breath test. If the cop then says he/she wants to do one of those tests, you'll need to know if you have the option to choose whether it's done by breath or blood. If you have a choice, that would then be the place to exercise that right.

 

[quincy]

In North Carolina (as in other states) the field sobriety test can be refused but a refusal to take a breath and/or blood test will result in an immediate 30-day license revocation.

 

[MonkeyMan61]

Thanks so much for the insight, Quincy and Taxing Matters. To follow the wormhole a bit further, I am wondering if the refusal to take the FST will result in an arrest, or if it just means that they will impound your car and take you comfortably to the station for the BAC tests, and once passed, then you can go and get your car back with no legal charges (after paying the impoundment cost, of course). In my case, after taking the FST, I was arrested and handcuffed for DWI, but then blew under the limit at the station. Too late. Damage done. Wondering what would have happened if I refused the FST? Maybe could have saved $5k in legal costs.

 

[quincy]

Thanks so much for the insight, Quincy and Taxing Matters. To follow the wormhole a bit further, I am wondering if the refusal to take the FST will result in an arrest, or if it just means that they will impound your car and take you comfortably to the station for the BAC tests, and once passed, then you can go and get your car back with no legal charges (after paying the impoundment cost, of course). In my case, after taking the FST, I was arrested and handcuffed for DWI, but then blew under the limit at the station. Too late. Damage done. Wondering what would have happened if I refused the FST? Maybe could have saved $5k in legal costs.

You might have avoided some costs by refusing the FST. It’s hard to say.

You could have requested a roadside breath test or a blood test. The officers can ask for both. For the blood test, you would have been transported to the hospital for the test.

There is often no benefit in the FST for a driver because it is subjective.

You can read through all of the information in the links provided earlier to learn more about the laws in your state and your rights as well as your responsibilities under these laws.

 

[MonkeyMan61]

Thank you so much. All the best.

 

[quincy]

Thank you so much. All the best.

You’re welcome, MonkeyMan61. We all appreciate the thanks, so thank you.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Wondering what would have happened if I refused the FST?

That depends on what else the cop has to support a suspicion of DUI. As I said before, if the cop is just fishing to get something to support the DUI, he or she may drop it when you refuse the FST rather than take the time to pursue it further. If the cop has fast access to a portable breath machine, he or she might still ask for that breath test since that wouldn't take much extra time, but generally the result of the portable test is not admissible; the cop would still need to get a breath test from another machine at the station or take you to a hospital or other medical facility for the blood test. The value of the portable test is that it gives the cop an indication of whether it's worth it to take that extra time.

In my case, after taking the FST, I was arrested and handcuffed for DWI, but then blew under the limit at the station. Too late. Damage done.

This statement suggests to me that you may believe, as many drivers do, that so long as your BAC is under the "legal limit" (.08 in most states, .05 in Utah) you are safe from a DUI. If so, then you should be aware that you can get convicted of a DUI in pretty much any state even if your BAC is under the legal limit. If you test at or over the legal limit, then the law presumes you intoxicated and thus guilty of a DUI even if you don't otherwise show signs of being intoxicated (slurred speech, evident motor skill problems like stumbling, unsteady on your feet, etc).

But if you are under the legal limit, the state can still get a conviction by showing that you had some amount of intoxicating/mind altering substance (whether booze or drugs) combined with evidence of impairment. The FST is one way the cops get evidence of impairment and thus the danger of taking the FST. So there is no amount of alcohol you can have and be completely safe from a DUI. You had a BAC of .07, which shows the presence of alcohol in system. Combine that with evidence of impairment, like a failed FST, and that's enough for a DUI conviction.