A recent court decision and changes to Oklahoma law have called into question whether Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) are really “legal” or “accepted” in Oklahoma. While law enforcement officers still administer the tests, defendants frequently question their reliability and their administration in court as part of a DUI defense strategy.
SFSTs are field tests administered on the roadside at a traffic stop to drivers suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. Usually, the tests used are approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The basic tests are: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, the Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. Officers are supposed to administer the tests using a standardized method and set of criteria. In practice, these criteria are not always followed perfectly, and the scoring allows some discretion by the administering officer.
In 2010, a DUI defendant challenged the admissibility of SFSTs on the ground that testimony regarding administration of the SFSTs was admitted into evidence without “scientific foundation by expert witnesses.” Anderson v. State, 2010 OK CR 27, ¶ 7. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that SFST testimony is not admitted as scientific evidence of intoxication, but for the purpose of describing “a physical act on the part of [the driver] observed by the deputies contributing to the cumulative portrait of [the driver] as intoxicated in the deputies’ opinion.” Id.
The court emphasized that the SFSTs are not scientific evidence: “a scientific foundation for the test was not required as field sobriety tests are not based upon scientific evidence and are not ‘a scientific test in the sense it requires a certain scientific reliability’, so that neither Fry, Daubert or any other test establishing reliability or trustworthiness is applicable.” Id. at ¶ 8 [citations omitted]. However, the ultimate effect of the court’s opinion was to allow admission of testimony regarding the SFSTs for defendant Anderson. In other words, these tests are evidence, just not scientific evidence based on expert opinions.
After the court decision was issued, Oklahoma changed the statute that allows testimony in court about SFSTs. The statute now allows additional testimony by Drug Recognition Experts (DREs), who are trained in other signs of intoxication beyond the criteria of the SFSTs. 47 O.S. § 11-902. Like for SFSTs, the NHTSA approves the DRE methods.
Know your rights at traffic stops, and if you are arrested at a traffic stop for a DUI in Oklahoma, call the attorney who questions every part of the arrest to help in your defense. Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor now using his trial experience and expert-level knowledge of DUI science to defend drivers, has the experience and the insight to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your case. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.