Today, all states utilize standardized field sobriety tests as one way to ascertain whether or not a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, SFSTs are commonly conducted after a routine traffic stop. The test results are used thereafter as evidence of impairment in a court of law.
The Three SFST Exams
Though police may use additional tests, the following three exams make up an SFST:
- Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN): This type of exam looks for involuntary eye jerking when looking from side to side.
- Walk-and-Turn (WAT): The exam tests one's ability to follow simple directions like walking heel-to-toe in a straight line, turning and doing it again.
-
One-Leg Stand (OLS): An OLS exam evaluates balance by keeping one foot six inches off the ground for 30 seconds. Officers note standardized cues that supposedly show impairment.
Consequences for Refusing a Field Sobriety Test
Today, every state, including Oregon, has implemented "implied consent" for field sobriety tests to determine impaired or drunk driving. This means that drivers who obtain a license to operate a vehicle on a state's roadway shall be automatically deemed to give consent to SFSTs if asked.
Drivers can and do refuse to submit to field sobriety tests if pulled over and asked. However, all drivers should note the repercussions involved for failing to submit. Oregon field sobriety test laws, for example, state that "evidence of the person's refusal or failure to submit is admissible in any criminal or civil action or proceeding arising out of allegations that the person was driving under the influence of intoxicants." Through this law, a prosecutor could present the evidence of refusal in court and argue that it was because the driver new they were guilty and would fail the test.
Constitutionality of Implied Consent and SFSTs
Through the years, constitutional advocates have continuously fought implied consent laws as they relate to SFSTs because they say they simply infringe on a person's right to an unreasonable search and seizure as protected under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, disagree and reason that because driving is a privilege rather than a right, only a rational basis review is needed to determine if it is constitutional. Thus, a state only needs to prove that the government action (implied consent law) be rationally related to a legitimate government interest (protecting individuals from drunk drivers).
However states, including Oregon, must still have reasonable suspicion to administer the tests.
Drivers who have submitted to a SFSTs test and have questions regarding the legality of the actions by the officer should contact an experienced DUI defense attorney in their area.
