Roadside field sobriety tests ( "FSTS") are often used by police officers in DUI investigations to determine whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol. Typically, they consist of a battery of 3-5 exercises such as walking and standing on one leg again, "nystagmus" ( "follow the pencil with your eyes"), finger-to-nose alphabet recitation, "Rohmberg" (with eyes closed-position-of)-attention, etc. The officer may subjectively decide whether the "single failed", or he may decide toApplying recent federal "standardized" scoring.
These DUI tests have an aura of scientific credibility. Unfortunately they have no real basis in science and are almost useless in a drunk driving case.
First, as nobody knows traffic officer or DUI lawyer who is arrested at the window of the driver from the FSTS allegedly given to determine probable cause to arrest are actually for the purpose of gathering evidence.
Secondly, since theOfficer already has his mind, his subjective decision as to whether a person passed or failed the field sobriety tests is suspect: as with every human being, he will "see" what he wants to see.
Thirdly, the conditions under which they are made the field sobriety tests, almost guarantee failure: usually late at night, possibly cold, on a graveled or sloped roadside, with bright headlights from passing cars (setting up wind waves), the officer's flashlight and patrol car's headlights flash andProvision of lighting - and a person who is nervous, frightened and completely unfamiliar with the given test.
Fourth, field sobriety tests are irrelevant and, in fact, programmed for failure.
What scientific basis exists FSTS confirm in a DUI investigation? Only one study by a private trading company, the Southern California Research Institute, with a grant from the federal government a "single" battery usable DUI tests. In order to earn their money, SCRIcame with three tests, which they said was not a panacea, but much better than everyone else, were used to FSTS not. But according to some studies, this undertaking has concluded that would, using the three standardized tests, 47 percent of the tested subjects arrested for DUI - even if they would consider necessary under the .10% within limits. (Burns and Moskowitz, Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest: Final Report, DOT-HS-802-424, NHTSA, 1977.)
The company was back to the drawing boardand in 1981 came with some better figures: only 32 percent of those who are not "tests actually innocent." (Tharp, Burns and Moskowitz, Development and Field Sobriety Test psychophysical tests for DWI arrests: Final Report, DOT-HS-805 -864, NHTSA, 1981.)
SCRI was paid, subject to their seal of approval on a number of areas of sobriety. But what was the reaction of the profit (non-) scientific community?
In 1991, conducted by Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University, a studyon the accuracy of FSTS. His colleagues filmed people perform six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "too much to drink and drive." Unknown, the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 DUI subjects .00%, stone sober.
The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to drive! In other words, the field sobrietyTests were throwing little more correct on the recognition of noise as a coin. Cole and Nowaczyk, Field Sobriety Tests: Are they programmed for failure? ", 79 Perceptual and Motor Skills Journal 99 (1994).
Tags : SEA Games 2009 in Vientiane Laos 25th Loan Home Owner Secured Loans Consolidating Student
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น