Talk:Field sobriety testing

Attribution
This article contains large amounts of text copied from here. It's correctly attributed, but it would certainly help understanding if a citation could be added to each paragraph (at the very least) taken from that source; whether the content or its tone are appropriate to this project I'll leave for someone else to decide. I've removed some other content, apparently copied without attribution from here, as unencyclopaedic per WP:NOTMANUAL. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field sobriety testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111115411/http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-tampa/between-bail-court-insurance-and-attorneys-fees-the-true-cost-of-dui-is-more-like-10000 to http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-tampa/between-bail-court-insurance-and-attorneys-fees-the-true-cost-of-dui-is-more-like-10000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal status (national procedures)
Australia - This article doesn't actually address FSTs in Oz, but I have seen references to FSTs, at least in Victoria. Can someone add to this section? Unitacx (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Canada - The status in Canada is somewhat ambiguous. A number of references assert that SFST refusal falls under "Refusal to Comply with a Demand of a Police Officer" under § 254(5) of the Criminal Code, but it is unclear whether this section is applied to SFSTs. Most materials describing "Refusal to Comply" with respect to "s. 254(5): Refusal Offence" describe refusal of a chemical test (i.e., refusal of an evidential breath test or a PBT). It seems that forensic descriptions in public brochures are "cartooney" suggestions that SFST refusal "without reasonable excuse" falls under "Refusal to Comply". It seems that the status could be:
 * an attempt to discourage SFST refusals, but SFST refusal is not an offence under s. 245(5)
 * a status in which SFST refusal falls under s. 254(5), so a charge of "Refusal to Comply" could be made
 * a status in which SFST refusal doesn't clearly fall under s. 254(5), but a "Refusal to Comply" charge will in rare occasions be made.
 * an SFST refusal would be considered a "refusal to Comply" offence

Does anyone know the status of this? Reference - 2.2.1.1.1.3 Failure or Refusal to Comply with a Demand  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitacx (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

US-centric issue
I think the "globalize/USA" template should be removed, because FSTs are primarily a US oddity. (Therefore it necessarily relates to US procedure.)


 * From anecdotal evidence, it seems that FSTs are peculiar to the US, Canada and apparently Australia.  Of note, the Canada implementation uses the (US) NHTSA criteria.  Given that these "tests" are primarily for the purpose of establishing probable cause for arrest (US terminology), it is likely that FSTs would not be used if the police can go directly to evidential chemical testing (with or without a PBT/PST).   This could clarify the US-Centric issue, in that these could in fact be implementations of specifically US procedures.


 * Part of this issue is addressed by the changed opening statement. The description "or drugs" in connection with FSTs is of course a separate issue, at least for the time being. Unitacx (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No one place for "Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) or Preliminary Alcohol Screening test (PAS)"
Information on PBT or PAS is found at drunk driving in the United States, but the "in the United States" part tends to be US-centric. Some substance can be added to Breathalyzer but much of the distinction is forensic. (i.e., the PBT typically does not have sufficient documented calibration for evidentiary testing.) This forensic information is very relevant to most cross-references to that material.Unitacx (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the forensic distinction of the PBT, some of these are some PBT devices that can be used a evidential chemical detectors, notably Lifeloc (FC20). This makes it difficult to totally separate an article of PBT testers from the Breathalyzer article.  The subject is already in the Breathalyzer article here. Unitacx (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a section under Breathalyzer, following the "law enforcement" section, could include most of the information. The major issue is the need to address forensic issues, but this may also be relevant to the Breathalyzer article. Unitacx (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Should this be part of the portal:criminal justice?
What it says. Unitacx (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issues
Much of the material here is derived from NHTSB reports. These reports are extensively copied in the literature, which is liable to trigger "false positives" from copyright bots. In addition, much of the NHTSB material on the subject is derived from external reports, which is likely to place at least the incorporated material into the public domain.

Most of these external reports identify NHTSB or DOT contract numbers, which may or may not automatically place the reports themselves in the public domain. If directly using those materials, please check the document for copyright notices. Unitacx (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple dubious or uncited claims in the lede section
Current quote: "FSTs (and SFSTs) are primarily used in the US".

They certainly are used in the United States. The claim that these tests are "primarily" used in the US is dubious and uncited, and I would guess that it is not true. I have read many academic journal articles (medical and neuroscientific, not at all legal) from countries that are not the United States about how to conduct these types of tests and whether they are valid in a medical and scientific sense. Not whether they have legal standing, nor whether they are used often, but whether they accurately reflect driving safety. Several European countries, and also Canada, are publishing papers about performance testing (i.e. not laboratory testing) to evaluate driving fitness after smoking marijuana, which is now legal in Canada. The number of European countries that have researched this topic with respect to alcohol is even larger, and it has several decades of history. US journal articles obviously also address these topics, but a large portion of articles on this topic are from multiple other countries.

Current quote: "[FSTs are used...] to meet "probable cause for arrest" requirements (or the equivalent), necessary to sustain an alcohol-impaired driving (DWI or DUI) conviction based on a chemical blood alcohol test."

Again, I am not super familiar with legal matters. This sentence seems possibly misleading or often not true, and it is also uncited. I have no idea about different jurisdictions, but based on medical and scientific literature I know the following: Performance tests (i.e. field sobriety tests) are sometimes optional for the driver who is suspected of impaired driving, which is to say that sometimes the driver can decline after the law enforcement officer suggests it. I am definitely not a lawyer, but if a suspect declines a performance test (FST), then the law enforcement officer will need to establish probable cause or get a warrant or similar in order to make it mandatory and not optional. I am fairly certain this is hugely variable between states in the US and between countries on the planet Earth. That's one reason I prefer to focus on medicine, chemistry, and human brains, which do not change when they pass new laws or when you cross imaginary lines on maps.

My vague understanding of the law is that giving a breath or blood sample is optional even more often than the performance test, and especially the blood sample is often optional. There are some good medical reasons for this: At least one driver in the United States died after venipuncture by a law enforcement officer conducted to collect a blood sample for laboratory testing for alcohol. I was rather surprised when I saw this article in a medical journals - police officers are not phlebotomists. The people who drive ambulances will almost universally do fingerstick blood tests (most often for blood glucose level), but actual venipuncture in ambulances is much less common in large part because it is dangerous and relatively slow. The devices for measuring blood electrolytes are quite small and will fit on an ambulance, and this is useful before arriving at the hospital, but fingerstick blood tests are far more common in the out-of-hospital setting compared to venipuncture - at least for blood collection. Giving IV fluids quickly is extremely common and important in ambulances, but those patients are in relatively bad shape. IV fluids in the ambulance are primarily indicated if the blood pressure is very low, often due to blood loss. IV medications in the ambulance are often used for cardiac arrhythmia. Blood electrolyte testing is not so helpful in ambulances, assuming the patient has high enough blood pressure to remain conscious.

An important question is this: What is necessary to convict someone of a crime relating to impaired driving? What is sufficient to obtain such a conviction? Is the performance test (the field sobriety test) actually necessary before you can do the laboratory test (the chemical test)? Is the performance test never sufficient for a conviction? Is the lab test always necessary for a conviction? The sentence that I quoted above implies that the performance test is never sufficient and the lab test is "necessary" (it uses the word "necessary") for a conviction. I just doubt this is the case in all jurisdictions and instances. But I am not a lawyer. The statement is uncited, in any event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluoborate (talk • contribs) 08:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
The majority of this article disproportionally criticizes the validity of field sobriety tests and frequently uses peacock terms. This articles needs to be edited to reflect a proportional NPOV and a more neutral tone. A large portion of this page’s content would be better suited in a new article possibly labeled “Criticisms of Field Sobriety Tests”. AGT803 (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Are coordination tests unique to the Anglosphere?
Or are they also used in civil/continental law countries? - knoodelhed (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)