The Tests Are More Subjective Than You Think
Roadside field sobriety tests — the eye test (HGN), the walk-and-turn, and the one-leg stand — are often presented as objective science. In reality, they are subjective assessments scored by an officer under difficult roadside conditions, and they carry real error rates even when done perfectly.
Age, weight, medical conditions, footwear, nerves, uneven pavement, weather, and traffic can all affect performance in ways that have nothing to do with impairment. That gap between how the tests appear and how they actually work is where a defense begins.
When Field Sobriety & Roadside Tests Are Administered Incorrectly
Standardized field sobriety tests only carry weight when they are administered exactly according to the standardized procedures officers are trained to follow. Officers are required to give specific instructions, demonstrate correctly, and score based on defined clues.
When an officer deviates from those procedures — rushing the instructions, scoring clues that weren't there, or ignoring conditions that invalidate the test — the results become unreliable. The firm reviews the cruiser and body-camera video frame by frame to identify exactly where the administration broke down.
Turning FST Problems Into Leverage
Weaknesses in the field sobriety testing can support a motion to suppress, undermine the officer's basis for the arrest, and cast doubt on the State's whole narrative of impairment.
Even where the tests are not thrown out entirely, exposing how shaky they are often creates room to negotiate a reduction or, in the right case, take the matter to trial with confidence.