Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

An Ashland man was recently arrested in Framingham and charged with a fifth offense OUI. He is being held in jail without bail, the MetroWest Daily News reports.

In the Ashland man's case, he appeared recently in Framingham District Court, where a judge held him without bail until an upcoming hearing.

The MetroWest Daily News reports that 54-year-old James Guy was scheduled back in court where it will be determined if he's a danger to the public. He was arrested one recent night after a report of a hit-and-run accident. A man said his vehicle was hit and the other driver took off.

When police got to the scene, the other vehicle returned, but when police attempted to pull the driver over, he drove off, the newspaper reports. Eventually stopped, police identified the man as Guy. Police reported that he tried to walk off, but they stopped him. He told them he didn't have a license, which is why he walked away. Officers reported smelling alcohol on his breath.

Police said he failed a field sobriety test -- walking nine steps heel to toe -- and after that, they arrested him. The Massachusetts OUI lawyer said he failed the field sobriety test only because his feet were not pointed in the right direction and he has vertigo, which can affect his balance.

Certainly, health issues can be a factor when taking field sobriety tests. An experienced DUI lawyer in Massachusetts will be able to point out weather or health related issues that may have made the tests difficult. And there are other defenses that may be applied, as well, depending on the circumstances.

Continue reading "Framingham Fifth Offense OUI Lands Man Held Without Bail" »

The Record in New Jersey is reporting that a police chief has come under fire for earning $30,000 in overtime in two years for DUI enforcement operations.

As the Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog recently reported, OUI roadblocks have little value in actually catching drunk drivers. In fact, police view the purpose as a way to keep drunken driving in the minds of drivers. Yet, they cost tens of thousands of dollars -- provided by state and federal grants typically -- to operate.

And a big chunk of that money goes to pay police officers overtime so they can stand around and watch passing cars. Police officers are just like any other worker when they are working a job. They want it to go by quickly and they want to get paid.

When officers set up operations to target OUI in Taunton or elsewhere in Massachusetts, they are looking for common traffic violations, such as speeding, swerving, improper lane change, stopping and starting or other ways to initiate a traffic stop. During a checkpoint, no such probable cause is necessary.

When a driver is stopped by officers, they should remain calm and answer the questions politely. If you believe you are being investigated for OUI, don't make any statements and tell them you wish to speak with a Taunton OUI lawyer immediately. Everyone has a right to not say anything if they are suspected of a crime.

According to the news article, the police chief in Elmwood Park New Jersey earned about $30,000 in overtime that payroll records show was paid out for drunken-driving operations.

Between Jan. 1, 2010 and Oct. 6, the chief got $29,436 on top of his $205,000 annual salary. Officials are investigating whether the chief was entitled to get that pay and if other department heads also got overtime pay.

The newspaper reports that the chief's contract has no provision for overtime pay, while other police officers' contracts clearly outline when they should be paid overtime and at what rate.

The chief told city council recently that he supervised OUI posts, making sure roadblocks were in the proper place and that procedures were followed. These roadblocks are typically covered by state or federal grants. Yet, police chiefs and other officials typically are salaried and can't earn overtime pay.

While city officials are investigating, it seems on the surface like a bad deal for taxpayers. A chief of a town of 19,000 with a small force of only 37 gets $200,000 per year. And on top of that, he's bringing in thousands in overtime?

And his excuse is that he had to supervise OUI roadblocks, which have little value anyway?

OUI roadblocks are typically set up in an area near bars or where patrons would drink and then later drive. Officers will usually set up barriers to funnel traffic so they can stop each vehicle and question each driver.

Their goal is to see if people are intoxicated -- or might (in the opinion of the officer) be intoxicated. Some people get pulled over and others just get to drive through and there typically is no reason why some drivers are put through this process and others get to go by. The decision is made by officers working the post.

In most situations, very few drivers are actually arrested. Most pass through and go on their way, yet police departments nationwide are spending millions of dollars on these operations with few results.

Continue reading "Police Chief Questioned For $30k in OT For OUI Operations" »

In this series of Blogs, I have attempted to describe all aspects of a Massachusetts drunk driving charge and how the case will be defended by a Massachusetts DUI lawyer. Prior blogs, have addressed the HGN test, nine step walk and turn, one leg stand test and nonstandard field sobriety tests. This post will address the driving factors and observations that the officer is looking for and how these can be used to form your defense. This is the final post in this series.

A critical part of defending your case will involve the reasons why the officer stopped your car. If there was no dangerous or erratic driving, you already have the framework for a strong defense of your case. The reason is that the purpose of the field sobriety tests is to determine your ability to drive safely and if there is no erratic driving than your driving itself provides part of the proof that you were not under the influence of alcohol.

What are some of the clues that a police officer looks for regarding the driving that will be used to demonstrate you were under the influence of alcohol:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations lists the driving clues that officer may find. I have attached a link to a police field sobriety testing training manual.

Of significance regarding this list, is that speeding is not a sign that a motorist is under the influence of alcohol.

Here are a list of the driving clues:

• weaving


• straddling a lane line


• turning with a wide radius


• drifting


• almost striking a vehicle or object


• stopping problems, too far, too short, or jerking


• accelerating or decelerating rapidly


• driving too slow


• slow response to traffic signals

I generally break up the driving between the initial observations of the officer and the driving once the police officer puts on the blue lights. Police officers are trained to think of these two incidents as separate driving sequences.

The officer's training when the blue lights go on is referred to as the stop sequence. The officer is taught to view this as an important point during the encounter to determine whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol. The signal to stop divides a motorist's attention between paying attention to the blue lights to stop and pulling over safely. The idea is that the signal to stop divides a driver's attention. The field sobriety tests, like the nine step walk and turn and one leg stand are designed to achieve a similar purpose of dividing a driver's attention. Even though the officer may claim you failed field sobriety tests, the driving itself is evidence of good mental ability and good coordination skills necessary for driving.

Accordingly, when a police report reads that a driver pulled over immediately after the blue lights go on, an effective cross examination by a Massachusetts DUI attorney will emphasize that this demonstrates that the motorist was not under the influence of alcohol. To listen to a further explanation of this defense, click here for a video explaining how this idea is used at trial.

Continue reading "Massachusetts OUI Lawyer explains drunk driving defenses based on police training" »

My goals as a Boston DUI lawyer in creating a series of blogs on field sobriety testing is to help those arrested, reading their police report for the first time, understand what to look for and how these exercised will be attacked at the time of trial. There are three field sobriety tests that are considered standardized and have been studied by the Government for reliability. These tests are

• Nine Step Walk and Turn
• One Leg Stand
• HGN test

Officers typically use additional tests. I will discuss some of the more common nonstandardized field sobriety tests that are given throughout Massachusetts. One common test is to require the motorist to recite the alphabet. Some officers will require from A to Z while some will try to make it more difficulty by requiring the motorist to start in the middle and stop before getting to the end of the alphabet, such as C to T. It is common for officers to claim that the person missed a letter, said the alphabet too fast or too slow and slurred the letters when reciting the alphabet.

Another common test is number counting backwards, from 91 to 78 for example. This exercise has never been studied for its reliability and accordingly its relevance in proving someone is under the influence can be minimized in front of a jury.

A final nonstandardized test used is the finger to nose test. This test appears extremely foolish and shows how the officer can make up almost any exercise and say failure means that someone is under the influence of alcohol. In this exercise, a motorist is required to lean back, close their eyes and follow the officers instructions to touch either the tip of their left or right finger to the nose. Often, police reports claim that the motorist missed, hitting the side of the nose or not touching directly the tip of the nose.

In some cases, an officer will perform the three standard field sobriety tests and perform one or two additional tests; generally, the more tests the officers performs the easier it is to argue that the officer was unsure, needed more information and was having trouble deciding whether to make the decision to arrest. As a Boston OUI attorney, I argue to the jury that if the officer has trouble deciding whether to make an arrest, then the jury has reasonable doubt. In a DUI trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires the jury to have an abiding conviction to a near moral certitude.

In defending charges of DUI in Massachusetts, one of the field sobriety tests that appears frequently in police reports and causes the most confusion for people arrested for drunk driving is the Horizontal Gaze and nystagmus field sobriety test, sometimes referred to by those arrested as the pen test.

It is understandable why this test causes some much confusion because it does not appear to have an scientific basis or reliability. You are on the side of the road, cars going by, and the officer is waiving a pen quickly in front of your face. If you stopped and asked most officers what they are looking for, many probably could not correctly explain the correct procedure in administering the test.

Fortunately, the HGN test is typically not admitted into evidence at a Massachusetts DUI trial as a result of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Sands. The HGN test can be admitted; however most prosecutors do not attempt to admit the test into evidence.

In some cases, I have used the HGN test to discredit the officer and demonstrate that the investigation was not properly conducted, so what are the signs that someone exhibits nystagmus.

The first clue that the officer looks for is lack of smooth pursuit. The officer is suppose to start with the pen in the center and move it to the left, taking two seconds out and two seconds back for a complete pass and following the same procedure for the right eye. The idea is that the officer is looking to detect any involuntary jerking of the eye, called nystagmus of which alcohol is one of many causes. Click here to read about court decisions regarding the HGN test.

The second clue is referred to as distinct and sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation. For this clue, the officer is suppose to move the pen until the eye has gone as far to the side as possible. The officer is then required to hold the pen in this position for a minimum of four seconds and observe to determine if there is an involuntary jerking of the eye. In many cases, the officer does not recall that the correct administration of this part of the test requires that the pen be held for four seconds at maximum deviation.

The final clue on the HGN test is called onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees. The officer is suppose to start with the stimulus in the middle and move it toward the right shoulder at a speed that would take four seconds to reach the edge of the left shoulder. In many cases, when officer perform this test, they are rapidly moving the stimulus contrary to the clear instruction of the police training manual.

With this clue, the officer is looking to see if there is any involuntary jerking of the eye prior to 45 degrees and is suppose to hold the stimulus to verify that it continues.

Although this test is rarely used in Massachusetts, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Study, the HGN test is the most accurate of the field sobriety tests at 77% reliable, as compared to 68% for the nine step walk and turn and 65% for the one leg stand. The head Police officer for the Massachusetts State police who speaks occasionally at drunk driving seminars for lawyers has repeatedly indicated his confidence in the reliability of the test. I have had an officer testify that he has never had a suspect fail the HGN test who was under the legal limit. During that hearing, the officer demonstrated how he conducts the test and did it in a very rapid fashion contrary to the careful and deliberate process outlined in the police manual.

Continue reading " OUI lawyer in Massachusetts discusses HGN field sobriety test" »

This is Massachusetts DUI lawyer, Michael DelSignore Second blog on field sobriety testing as part of a five part blog series that will be published on this Blog.

The One Leg Stand field sobriety test is the most difficult test given by the police because many people cannot perform this test even if no alcohol is consumed. Accordingly, the idea that failure on this test means someone is under the influence of alcohol is flawed from the start. Even when given under ideal conditions, the test is only 65% reliable according to the studies regarding this exercise. I have attached a link to a field sobriety test student manual used by police officers.

The One Leg stand has the following clues that the officer is suppose to observe:

• Sways while balancing
• Using arms for balance
• Hopping
• Puts foot down

If a person exhibits two or more clues, that is considered a failure. Though not listed as clues, an experienced Massachusetts OUI attorney will also point out other factors showing good mental ability and coordination.

Like the nine step walk and turn, the one leg stand has an instruction phase. Accordingly, when a person maintains balance during the instruction phase, and starts the test at the appropriate time, those factors showing that the motorist can follow instructions demonstrating, a normal mental ability. Typically, there is no mention of any difficulty maintaining balance during the instruction phase. The idea behind this test is to stress for the jury that the motorist had normal balance other than when required to perform the difficult exercise of balancing on one leg.

While the test requires someone to balance until the count of 30, most jurors probably would consider the test as successfully completed with someone who balances for a much shorter period of time. Further, the inaccuracies of the scoring can be pointed out as typically the officer will not put the details in the report that justified the conclusion. One of the clues on the one leg stand is that a person cannot use their arms for balance; however, the training of the officer states that the arms have to be more than six inches from the body. In many cases the details of how someone performed are missing from the police report.

If you read your police report and see that the officer found you failed the one leg stand, your case can still be won. In almost all cases, the police will claim that a motorist failed field sobriety tests. The one leg stand is the most difficult exercise to perform; even the police training manual, states that some people cannot perform the test, including someone over 50 pounds overweight or over the age of 65. As a result, the officer would have to admit that the test is easier for someone younger and in shape, then for someone older, who has been working throughout their life and may have physical injuries. In fact, the early versions of the police training manual stated that some people could not perform the one leg stand test even without consuming any alcohol; this language has since been removed from the manual.

Techniques to minimize the one leg stand at trial:

• Point out that the motorist had no trouble with balance when on two feet, listening to the instruction to the one leg stand, no trouble with balance getting out of the car, did not stumble when walking on the nine step walk and turn, and had no difficulty with balance during booking.
• Stress that this is a physical fitness test and is one size fits all, the officer gives the same test to a college student as a carpenter who has spent years working doing manual labor. The older person, with physical aliments, is disadvantaged from the start.
• underscore that even the Government study indicates that the test is only 65% reliable, under perfect conditions. A 35% failure rate should raise a reasonable doubt.

Continue reading "Drunk Driving Lawyer in Massachusetts discusses attacking the one leg stand field sobriety test at a DUI trial" »

Under Massachusetts DUI law, there is no obligation to take field sobriety tests. The reason is that the highest court in Massachusetts has ruled that a motorist who refuses field sobriety tests is invoking their privilege against self-incrimination under the State Constitution, Article 12 of the Declaration of Rights. The SJC cased of Commonwealth v. McGrail, 419 Mass. 774 (1995), ruled that refusal to perform field sobriety tests was inadmissible. The SJC held that a refusal to take field sobriety tests is the equivalent of a statement that the motorist had too much alcohol. Accordingly, under DUI law in Massachusetts, a refusal to take field sobriety tests is inadmissible just as a refusal to take a breathalyzer test is also inadmissible.

A recent case readdressed this issue in a different context in the case of Commonwealth v. Beaulieu, decided, March 18, 2011. In this case, the Massachusetts OUI attorney, attempted to prove that the officer did not perform a complete investigation by refusing to offer field sobriety tests. The court held that the defendant opened the door to this testimony and accordingly it was admissible, based on the questioning of the defense counsel. While it is difficult to know the complete details of the case from the opinion, it appears that the defense strategy was appropriate in the case. In some cases, a motorist may refuse one field sobriety test while in others all testing will be refused. However, any refusal to perform field sobriety tests is inadmissible as long as the defense strategy does not open the door.

Continue reading "Foxborough, Massachusetts DUI lawyer discusses right to refuse field sobriety tests " »

From portable breathalyzer tests, to ignition interlock devices, to the next big thing in drunk driving prevention, technology is playing an increasing role in law enforcement enforcement practices, the Boston Globe reported.

As we reported earlier this summer on our Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog, New York recently passed a law requiring ignition interlock devices for all first-time drunk driving offenders. The devices force a driver to blow into them and conduct a breath test before permitting a car to start. Massachusetts OUI laws only require the devices for second or subsequent offenses.

Now a new generation of detection devices are being developed that work with the touch of a button, analyzing the blood-alcohol level of anyone who gets behind the wheel.

Privacy concerns aside -- and there are some real legitimate privacy concerns -- the increasing reliance on technology has a significant impact on the defense of OUI cases in Massachusetts. Field sobriety tests are little more than the subjective opinion of an officer as to a motorist's level of intoxication. Portable breathalyzers are notoriously unreliable and even breathalyzer machines upon which BAC results rely can be corrupted by poor maintenance, operator error and a host of other factors. In Florida, defense lawyers have successfully argued for the released of the computer code upon which the machines operate. The breathalyzer company is arguing trade secrets has thus far defied a court order for release of the information sought by defense attorneys for use in defending motorists accused of driving with a BAC over the legal limit of .08.

As new technology is introduced, it will be all the more critical to select a Massachusetts OUI lawyer with the knowledge and experience to provide a comprehensive defense.

Presently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is spearheading a $10 million effort to create the high-tech instruments. Ultimately, the devices could become standard in cars, much like seat belts or airbags. A defense contractor in Waltham is testing prototypes as part of a five-year effort that ends in 2013.

Cost and size are currently hurdles, with prototypes running to the size of a shoe box or larger. And automotive analysts warn that device malfunctions could be a serious inconvenience to sober drivers and may even cause a safety hazard.

Continue reading "Technology will continue to impact OUI defense in Massachusetts" »

Boston OUI Lawyer Michael DelSignore wishes you a safe and enjoyable Fourth of July. Celebrate responsibly, know that law enforcement will be out in force, and call if you are stopped or charged with drunk driving anywhere in Massachusetts.

Attorney DelSignore will personally be available to speak with you by cell phone throughout the holiday weekend.

MASS Live reports great weather with plenty to do. AAA is predicting that more than 1.77 million motorists will hit the road in New England, or nearly 20 percent more than last year.

A law enforcement roadblock netted seven OUI arrests in Hingham last week, the Globe reported. And authorities will be conducting roadblocks -- or sobriety checkpoints as they like to call them -- throughout the weekend.

There is irony in the fact that local law enforcement will spend the Independence Holiday conducting an activity that skirts the Fourth Amendment rights of residents to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. If you are charged with OUI at a Massachusetts checkpoint, call to discuss your rights.

Field sobriety tests and breathalyzer examinations in Massachusetts are another area of the law where an attorney can protect your rights. When such tests are conducted incorrectly, a reduction or dismissal of the charges often results. Some motorists choose to refuse the test, which can carries a six-month license suspension for first offenders if upheld on appeal, but also denies the state a key piece of evidence to prove that you were driving under the influence.

When it comes to field sobriety tests, many motorists mistakenly believe these tests are used by law enforcement to determine whether you are intoxicated and that passing the tests will result in your being allowed to continue on your way. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Field sobriety tests are nothing more than a tool by law enforcement to gather evidence of your guilt in the opinion of a law enforcement officer whose job it is to ... gather evidence of your guilt!

The best defense against a Massachusetts OUI charge is to hire an experienced criminal trial lawyer.

Continue reading "Boston OUI Attorney available throughout the Fourth of July weekend" »

Massachusetts DUI charges for motorcycle drivers are defended with many of the same methods used to defend a charge against an automobile driver. With the summer approaching, it is likely that there will be an increased number of DUI arrests involving motorcycle drivers.

What does an officer look for when determining whether a motorcycle driver is driving drunk. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety manual that officer used to detect DUI for motorcycle drivers, one clue is drifting during the turn. The National Highway Safety manual states that studies have shown that the most common cause of single-vehicle fatal motorcycle crashes is the failure to turn properly, with the motorcycle continuing straight during the turn. The manual further states that in less extreme cases the motorcycle driver's turn radius will expand during the turn.

Another clue an officer will look for in motorcycle DUI cases is trouble getting off of the bike and failing to stop the bike in a safe place. This clue is similar to the clue officers look for in automobile stops, whether the person has trouble getting out of the car. The idea with a Massachusetts DUI cases involving a car or a motorcycle is that getting off of the bike or out of the car takes balance and coordination that excess alcohol consumption can reduce. In cases where a motorcycle driver, gets off of the bike with no difficulty, this would be a strong clue in the motorist's favor demonstrating balance and coordination and undermining the opinion of the officer that the driver was under the influence.

Another clue indicating a lack of balance and coordination is trouble with balance when the motorcycle comes to a stop. This is a clue that an officer may observe when a motorist is stopped at a stop sign or red light. Other clues that an officer would look for are being unsteady during a turn, leaning incorrectly, late breaking during a turn and erratic driving.

Continue reading "OUI in Massachusetts for motorcycle drivers " »

A 27-year-old woman faces drunk driving charges for allegedly trying to drive home to Rhode Island in a car that was missing a tire, the Taunton Daily Gazette reported.

Diane Monteiro, of 38 Cotter St., appeared in Taunton District Court on Tuesday, where she was arraigned on charges of operating under the influence of liquor, operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, operating an uninsured motor vehicle, leaving the scene of property damage and a marked lanes violation. She was released on $100 cash bail.

Monteiro was arrested April 18 on Winthrop Street in Rehoboth when officers spotted a car traveling eastbound with lopsided headlights. As the Nissan Altima passed the police cruiser, officers noticed it was driving on three tires and its taillights were not functioning.

Police report she drifted into the breakdown lane, where she drove for another quarter mile on the rim, sending sparks shooting into the air as the car scrapped along the pavement. The officers pulled her over just east of Earl Dias Interiors, where they report the Providence woman failed several field sobriety tests.

An inspection of the car revealed it had dents and scratches, as well as a missing side mirror, where police allege Monteiro crashed into a mailbox shortly before being spotted by the officers. The mirror was found on Route 44 in the 500 block of Winthrop Street, where a mailbox had also been damaged.

Authorities reported the defendant smelled of alcohol and appeared "extremely disoriented." She told officers she had consumed two mixed drinks. However, a breathalyzer test at the Rehoboth Police Station registered a blood-alcohol level of .22, nearly three times the legal limit of .08 in Massachusetts.

Monteiro is scheduled to be back in court May 17.

Continue reading "Woman faces Taunton OUI charge; allegedly passes police in vehicle missing a wheel" »

DUI charges were dismissed against former Chicago Blackhawk star Chris Chelios as a judge ruled that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Chelios for DUI.

In order for a police officer to arrest a motorist for DUI, the police must have probable cause to believe that the motorist is driving under the influence. Probable cause is a fairly low standard of proof which is generally satisfied through the officer's claiming that a motorist failed field sobriety tests. In cases with no field sobriety tests, the issue of whether probable cause supported the arrest can come into play. DUI case law holds that a mere odor of alcohol is insufficient to establish probable cause to arrest for DUI. In many cases, an officer will have other factors other than a odor of alcohol, such as slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, admissions to drinking and difficulty of the motorist maintaining balance.

While it is difficult to have a Massachusetts OUI dismissed based on a lack of probable cause to arrest, generally cases with a close issue as to probable cause are difficulty for the Commonwealth to prove at trial, where the standard of proof is much higher than probable cause, but requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Continue reading "DUI Charges dismissed against former Blackhawks defenseman Chris Chelios" »

A Brockton man, John Lloyd was arrested in an empty Braintree parking lot and charged with a Second Offense OUI in Massachusetts. The case will be heard in the Quincy District Court. According to the brief news account, Lloyd refused to perform field sobriety tests. There is no requirement that a motorist perform field sobriety tests when stopped for DUI by a police officer. A motorist is perfectly within their legal right to refuse to perform any field sobriety test and the refusal to perform theses tests cannot be used against a motorist in court.

Because field sobriety tests are designed for failure and scored by the officer administering the tests, it is advisable for a motorist to polite refuse to take any field sobriety tests rather than to subject themselves to a no win situation. Further, by declining to perform field sobriety tests, the Commonwealth is left solely with the officer observations and any evidence of erratic driving.

In this case, Lloyd's Massachusetts OUI lawyer will have a strong argument that there is not enough evidence for a conviction, given that the news report suggests no erratic driving. Further, a DUI lawyer would want to investigate the location of the parking lot, whether other cars were present to determine if the officer's had a lawful basis to make the initial detention of the motorist.

Continue reading "Brockton man arrested for Massachusetts Second Offense OUI in empty Braintree parking lot" »

Massachusetts OUI arrests will generally contained statements by the officer in the police report that the motorist failed field sobriety tests. Are these tests even reliable? Studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show these tests are approximately 68%. Is that enough to prove a case to a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer is in many case it is not enough as the problems with these tests are easy to understand.

The case of actress Stephanie Pratt demonstrates the minimal reliability of these tests. According to news accounts, the actress was taking these tests in four inch high heel boots. Police training manuals clearly provide that any motorist with two inch or more high heels should be given a chance to take off their shoes. If this account is accurate, the officer's experience, training and opinion on whether Pratt was under the influence could be called into question by a good DUI lawyer on cross examination.

Continue reading "Fairness and reliability of Massachusetts OUI field sobriety tests" »

Field sobriety tests are often used to justify a Massachusetts DUI arrest. A recent study demonstrates that these field sobriety tests are no more reliable than flipping a coin. A recent study showed that police officers incorrectly classified 46% of the participants. Why are field sobriety tests unreliable, because they are physical tests, balancing on one leg and walking nine steps heel to toe are the two most commonly used field sobriety tests. These tests are impacted by weather conditions, location of the test and especially the physical dexterity of the participant.

Another common field tests, the finger to nose test, has never been studied for reliability and requires the motorist to touch their nose while on the side of the road with a police officer judging their performance. The article suggests that police officers know when they approach the car whether there is going to be an arrest and that these field tests simply justify the decision to arrest.

Continue reading "Boston DUI arrests and field sobriety tests" »