 |
Driving While Intoxicated A Problem For Nevada's Young - Reno Personal Injury Lawyer -- Tampa Bay Personal Injury Lawyer Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer Miami Personal Injury Lawyer Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer Portland Personal Injury Lawyer Austin Personal Injury Lawyer Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer Pensacola Personal Injury Lawyer Reno Personal Injury Lawyer Roanoke Personal Injury Lawyer Topeka Personal Injury Lawyer Little Rock Personal Injury Lawyer Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer New York City Injury Lawyer Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer Honolulu Personal Injury Lawyer Dallas Personal Injury Lawyer Mealey's Legal News Day On Torts Ernie The Attorney Location: InjuryBoard.com Nevada Reno Motor Vehicle Accidents InjuryBoard.com Regional Personal Injury Weblog Nevada Reno Coverage Area Reno Legal Topics Defective Products Insurance Bad Faith Medical Malpractice Motor Vehicle Accidents Sexual Abuse Worksite Injuries Wrongful Death Recent Entries Nevada Crosswalks Stages of Litigation in Nevada - Part II Driving While Intoxicated A Problem For Nevada's Young Nevada's Teen Drivers Get Into More Auto Accidents Stages Of Litigation In Nevada Nevada's 'Catch-All' Statute Of Limitations Compensation After An Automobile Accident Repressed Memory In Sexual Abuse Cases Assessing Your Risk In Personal Injury Litigation Insurance Companies Owe Insureds Special Duties Subscribe by Email Search: About InjuryBoard.com Nevada Law Firms Contact the Editor Name: E-mail: Phone Number: Zip Code: Your Question: Confidential Featured Posts Sites of Interest Reno Personal Injury Lawyer Driving While Intoxicated A Problem For Nevada's Young E-mail this Article Print this Article Text Size: A A Editor: Steven J. Klearman, Attorney at Law Firm: Steven J. Klearman and Associates December 24, 2005 By Steve Klearman Comments (0) TrackBack (0) Category: Motor Vehicle Accidents The Reno-Gazette Journal reports that while the rate at which driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs jumped 43 percent for 17-year-olds from 2000 to 2001, the rate declined in 2002, a trend that held true for all other teenage groups. The Gazette-Journal's study found that the trend reverses itself as soon as drivers turn 20: The rate at which DUI contributes to accidents leaped 34 percent among 20-year-old drivers from 2001 to 2002 and 27 percent among 21-year-olds. These increases come after years of decline or only small increases. The number of DUI-related accidents involving 20-year-olds also is climbing in Washoe County. The severity of those accidents also is climbing; the percentage of DUI-related mishaps that result in injuries jumped from 33 percent in 2001 to 52 percent the following year. The newspaper's analysis also illustrates why insurance companies charge teen drivers more: Teen drivers are much more likely to have an accident than drivers in their 20s. Although the accident rate for 20-24 year-old drivers has remained steady at about 10 percent annually, the accident rate for teen drivers has climbed to almost twice that rate -- 18 percent in 2002. Teen drivers are more likely to have passengers aboard when they have a fatal accident than older drivers, the newspaper analysis found. The percentage of injury accidents when a teen driver has teen passengers is much higher in Washoe County than it is for the state as a whole. And the disparity is getting worse: Washoe's rate of 35 percent in 2002 was nearly twice the statewide rate of 18 percent. Increasingly it is the passenger who is getting injured. Both the total number of injured passengers and the per-capita rate are climbing. The injury rate when the injured passenger is a teen jumped 20 percent from 2000 to 2002 and the injury rate when the passenger is either an adult or a child has doubled between 1999 and 2002. Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: http://myblog.injuryboard.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/481 Comments Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember Me? Yes No Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style) Email Article Email this entry to: Your email address: Message (optional): © 2006 Claris Law
|
|
DWI Lawyers in New Bergen, New Jersey DUI/DWI Attorneys, Lawyers and Law Firms DUI/DWI Lawyers in Bergen County, New Jersey View all DUI/DWI Lawyers in New Jersey Search for Premier DUI/DWI Attorneys Search by State: AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MH MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA PR RI SC SD TN TX VI UT VT VA WA WV WI WY -------- or --------- Search within: 25 Miles 50 Miles 125 Miles All From Zip Code: Additional Resources How a criminal lawyer can help DUI/DWI Law (Drunk Driving) FAQs State-by-state DMV Information State laws on Drunk Driving MADD Impaired Driving Facts Alcoholics Anonymous Drunk Driving State Statisics Home -> DUI/DWI -> New Jersey -> Bergen County Lawyers View All Bergen County Lawyers Premier Results: Koulikourdis & Associates Free Initial Consultation 45 Hudson Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Send Email | Click Here for Phone Number | Visit WebSite Brian D. Iton, Law Office of I will review your case without charge, and give you a realistic sense of your rights, options, and costs, in terms of time and money. 39 Tallman Place Englewood, NJ 07631 Send Email | Click Here for Phone Number | Visit WebSite Guston & Guston, LLP Guston & Guston, LLP serves clients & their families and businesses throughout the region, including all of northern New Jersey counties. When you or someone you know needs advice or services in adoption, wills & probate, small business legal services, real estate, or family law, contact Guston & Guston, LLP. 55 Harristown Road Glen Rock, NJ 07452 Send Email | Click Here for Phone Number | Visit WebSite E. Gregory M. Cannarozzi, Counsellor-at-Law, L.L.C Free Initial Consultation Law Office of E. Gregory M. Cannarozzi provides a broad spectrum of legal and civil mediation services for the Northern New Jersey area. Our staff consists of trained, qualified professionals who work to ensure that each client is satisfied. Accredited Professional Mediator. 470 Grant Avenue Oradell, NJ 07649 Send Email | Click Here for Phone Number | Visit WebSite Richard Insley, Law Offices of Trial lawyer representing adults and juveniles accused of offenses in Superior, Municipal and Juvenile Courts since 1975. Also accepts substantial personal injury matters. 505 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Send Email | Click Here for Phone Number | Visit WebSite Listings for Bergen County DUI/DWI Lawyers: Closter, NJ Law Offices Of Lawrence M Simon , Lawrence Simon, 14 Ver Valen Street Hackensack, NJ Bar-Nadav & Associates , Ron Bar-NaDav, 84 Main Street Donald Horowitz, Law Offices of , Donald Horowitz, 24 Bergen Street Grant Law Firm , Savyon Grant, 39 Hudson Street LoFaro & Reiser , Glenn R. Reiser, 55 Hudson Street LoFaro & Reiser, LLP , Glenn Reiser, 55 Hudson St. Rafael Gomez, Attorney At Law, P.c. , Rafael Gomez, 259 Union Street Midland Park, NJ Peter A. Jeffer, Attorney at Law , Peter A. Jeffer, 212 Godwin Avenue Ridgewood, NJ Thomas Ferro, Attorney At Law , Thomas Ferro, 31 East Ridgewood Avenue Bergen County Lawyers in related fields Criminal Defense Lawyers Are you a Lawyer? List on AttorneyPages | Find Expert Witnesses | Find Legal Information / Advice | Legal Forms | About Us | Media AttorneyPages® is not a lawyer referral service and never receives any portion of any attorney's fees.We welcome feedback from visitors but are not responsible for any attorney's advice. Use of AttorneyPages.com is subject to our disclaimer, conditions of use and privacy policy.Use for marketing or solicitation is prohibited. AttorneyPages® , ExpertPages® and FreeAdvice® are trademarks and units of Advice Company ® 1997 to 2006 - All Rights Reserved - For feedback or listing information only, contact us by phone, Fax or Email: 2330 Marinship Way Suite 120, Sausalito, CA 94965, P.O. Box 1739 Sausalito, CA 94966 (415) 331-1212 - Fax (415) 331-4255
|
|
DUI Attorneys for Your Georgia Lawyers DUI Drunk Driving Defense Criminal Defense Attorneys Georgia Criminal Defense and DUI Lawyers William C. Head William Head's Video Clips on DUI Practice by his Firm GEORGIA DUI PUNISHMENT CHARTS - PDF Head Thomas Webb & Willis LLC Address: 750 Hammond Dr. Ne Atlanta, GA 30328-5526, US Atlanta, Georgia DUI Lawyer Phone Number: (404) 250-1113 Fax Number: (404) 250-1494 Map and Driving Directions Accolades about Mr. Head! Evaluating DUI Attorneys for Your Case What You Need To Know - Teenage And Adult Driver Responsibility Act Get a FREE evaluation of your case by completing our CONFIDENTIAL online initial questionnaire . Upon receipt of your initial questionnaire, we will contact you personally within 24 hours (48 hours if over the weekend). Our attorneys and support staff stand ready to assist you in weathering the stressful days ahead as we investigate and challenge your pending charges. We understand the serious nature of your situation and want to help you deal with the stressful and complex issues of a drunk driving arrest. At Head, Thomas, Webb & Willis, we are dedicated to the vigorous defense of individuals accused of crime , including driving under the influence of alcoho l or other substances. Our senior partner, William C. Head , has been called one of the nation's foremost authorities on drunk driving defense. He "wrote the book" on Georgia DUI Trial Practice and is often consulted by other attorneys, the media, and even the courts for his expertise in this very specialized area of law. From the moment of arrest, through all phases of trial, and even appeal if necessary, our attorneys and staff specialize in criminal defense and DUI law and will work hard to provide you with thorough and competent representation. Please take a moment to explore our site. We would be happy to assist you if you call (404) 250-1113 or TOLL FREE 1-877-DUI-GEOR (1-877-384-4367). Most Popular cities that we serve in the state of Georgia: Albany, Georgia Alpharetta, Georgia Athens, Georgia Atlanta, Georgia Augusta, Georgia Columbus, Georgia Decatur, Georgia Lawrenceville, Georgia Macon, Georgia Marietta, Georgia Norcross, Georgia Roswell, Georgia Savannah, Georgia Stone Mountain, Georgia Other cities that our DUI Lawyer serves in the state of Georgia: Acworth Adairsville Adel Alma Alto Americus Aragon Ashburn Auburn Bainbridge, Georgia Ball Ground Barnesville Baxley Blackshear Blairsville Blakely Blue Ridge Bogart Bonaire Bowdon, Georgia Bremen Brooklet Brunswick Buchanan Butler Cairo Calhoun Camilla Candler-mcafee Canton, Georgia Carnesville Carrollton Cartersville Cedartown Chatsworth Chickamauga Clarkesville Claxton Clayton Cleveland, Georgia Cochran Colbert College Park Colquitt Commerce Conyers Cordele Cornelia Covington Cumming, Georgia Cuthbert Dahlonega Dallas Dalton Danielsville Dearing Donalsonville Douglas Douglasville Dublin, Georgia Duluth Dunwoody Eastman East Point Eatonton Elberton Ellijay Evans Fayetteville Fitzgerald, Georgia Flowery Branch Folkston Forest Park Forsyth Fort Benning Fort Oglethorpe Fort Valley Gainesville Glenn Glennville, Georgia Gray Greensboro Griffin Grovetown Guyton Hahira Hampton Harlem Hartwell Hawkinsville, Georgia Hazlehurst Hephzibah Hiawassee Hinesville Hiram Hogansville Hull Jackson Jasper Jefferson, Georgia Jesup Jonesboro Kingsland Lagrange Lakeland Lake Park Lavonia La Fayette La Grange Leesburg, Georgia Lilburn Lincolnton Lithia Springs Lizella Loganville Louisville Ludowici Lyons Mableton Madison, Georgia Manchester Martinez Maysville Mcdonough Mc Caysville Mc Donough Mc Rae Metter Midland Midway, Georgia Milledgeville Millen Monroe Montezuma Cities continued: Monticello Morrow Moultrie Nashville Newnan North Atlanta, Georgia Oakwood Ocilla Oxford Peachtree City Pelham Pembroke Perry Pooler Quitman Redan, Georgia Reidsville Richmond Hill Rincon Ringgold Rising Fawn Riverdale Rockmart Rocky Face Rome Rossville, Georgia Roswell Royston Saint Marys Sandy Springs Senoia Sharpsburg Silver Creek Smyrna Social Circle Soperton, Georgia South Augusta Statesboro Stockbridge St Marys Summerville Sylvester Tallapoosa Tate Thomaston Thomasville, Georgia Thomson Tifton Toccoa Trenton Trion Tucker Tunnel Hill Twin City Valdosta Vidalia, Georgia Vienna Villa Rica Warner Robins Warrenton Washington Watkinsville Waycross Waynesboro West Augusta West Point, Georgia Winder Winston Woodbine Woodstock Wrens Wrightsville LEARN MORE Sample Trial Victories License Suspension and Revocation Issues Penalties if Convicted Head, Thomas, Webb & Willis named to Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Registry of Pre-Eminent Lawyers DUI - DWI Information Links Home Get Help Cases About Us Resources Contact Us Disclaimer Headlines Marketing Corporation DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS: (404) 250-1113 TOLL FREE: 1-877-DUI-GEOR (1-877-384-4367) CONTACT EMAIL : sestes@absolutely-not-guilty.com All Rights Reserved. No Copying, Duplication or Reproduction of the Content or "Look and Feel" Of this Web Site is Permitted. OtherDUI DWI OUI/Drunk Driving Resources: Atlanta Georgia DUI Attorney Atlanta DUI Attorney Atlanta DUI Texas DWI Attorney Massachusetts OUI Lawyer New York DWI Attorney ArizonaDUI Attorney Law Firms Atlanta Attorneys Atlanta Georgia DUI Lawyer Metadata, Design, and Optimization services provided by Electric Lemonade Interactive Media - Atlanta Web Design 2004-2005, Headlines Marketing Corporation All Rights Reserved
|
|
Field Sobriety Test (SFST) U.S. Department of Transportation - NHTSA - Development of a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Training Management System - Introduction - DOT HS 809 400 - November 2001 Introduction This report presents the results of a study conducted for the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a model system for managingStandardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) training within a state. The report ispresented in three sections. This brief Introduction discusses the historicalcontext of the study and presents the objectives of the research. The secondsection of the report describes the tasks that were performed and presents studyresults. The third section discusses the specifications of a computerized modelsystem for tracking SFST training. Development and Validation of the SFST Battery During the late 1960s and early 1970s more than 50,000 peoplelost their lives each year on our nation's public roads; more than half of thefatalities involved an alcohol-impaired driver. Traffic safety has improvedconsiderably since that time: the annual death toll has declined to about40,000, even though the numbers of drivers, vehicles, and miles driven all havegreatly increased. When miles traveled are considered, the likelihood of beingkilled in traffic in 1966 was more than three times what it is today. Research sponsored by the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) has contributed to the improved condition, in part, byproviding law enforcement officers with useful and scientifically validinformation and training materials to assist in the enforcement of drinking anddriving laws. Beginning in 1975, NHTSA sponsored research that led to thedevelopment of a Driving While Impaired (DWI) 1 detection guide that listed 20driving cues and the probabilities that a driver exhibiting a cue would have aBAC of at least 0.10 percent (Harris et al., 1980; Harris, 1980). A similarstudy was conducted more recently that identified 24 driving cues that arepredictive of DWI at the 0.08 level (Stuster, 1997); the latter study alsoidentified ten post-stop cues with probabilities of DWI of at least 90 percent.NHTSA previously sponsored research that led to the development of a motorcycleDWI detection guide and training program (Stuster, 1993). NHTSA's DWI trainingmaterials, based on the results of these studies, have exposed the currentgeneration of law enforcement officers in the U.S. to information critical toDWI enforcement by providing a systematic, scientifically valid, and defensibleapproach to on-the-road DWI detection. At the same time NHTSA was providing officers withinformation concerning the driving behaviors that are the most predictive ofimpairment, the agency also sponsored research that led to the development of astandardized battery of tests for officers to administer to assess driverimpairment after an enforcement stop has been made. Marcelline Burns and Herbert Moskowitzconducted laboratory evaluations of several of the tests that were mostfrequently-used by law enforcement officers at the time (Burns and Moskowitz,1977). In addition to a variety of customary roadside tests (e.g.,finger-to-nose, maze tracing, backward counting), the researchers evaluatedmeasures of an autonomic reaction to central nervous system depressants, knownas Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) is an involuntaryjerking of the eye that occurs naturally as the eyes gaze to the side. Aschan(1958) described studies that linked various forms of nystagmus to BAC, andWilkinson, Kime, and Purnell (1974) reported consistent changes in HorizontalGaze Nystagmus with increasing doses of alcohol. At the time Burns and Moskowitzwere conducting their seminal research for NHTSA, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmusrecently had been found to reliably predict BACs in a study conducted in Finland(Pentilla, Tenhu, and Kataja, 1974). Further, Lehti (1976) had just calculated astrong correlation between BAC and the onset of nystagmus. All of the field sobriety tests evaluated by Burns andMoskowitz were found to be sensitive to BAC in varying degrees, at least underlaboratory conditions. In addition, all of the tests showed a consistentincrease in correlations with increasing BACs. Statistical analyses found theHorizontal Gaze Nystagmus test to be the most predictive of the individualmeasures. However, the combined scores of two of the tests provided a slightlyhigher correlation than the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test by itself (Burns andMoskowitz, 1977); three tests were recommended to become the components of theSFST battery. NHTSA immediately sponsored a subsequent study to standardizethe test administration and scoring procedures and conduct further laboratoryand field evaluations of the new battery of three tests. The researchers foundthat law enforcement officers tended to increase their arrest rates and weremore effective in estimating the BACs of stopped drivers after they had beentrained in the administration and scoring of the Standardized Field SobrietyTest battery. The results of the study were documented in the technical report, Developmentand Field Test of Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest (Tharp, Burns, andMoskowitz, 1981). That report was cited throughout the U.S. to establish thescientific validity of the SFST battery and to support officers' testimony incourt. Beginning in 1981, law enforcement officers used NHTSA'sStandardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) battery at roadside to help determinewhether motorists who are suspected of DWI have blood alcohol concentrations (BACs)greater than 0.10 percent. Since 1981, however, many states have implementedlaws that define DWI at BACs below 0.10. For this reason, NHTSA sponsoredadditional research to systematically evaluate the accuracy of the SFST batteryto discriminate above or below 0.08 percent and above or below 0.04 percent BAC.In that study, Jack Stuster and Marcelline Burns (Stuster and Burns,1998) foundthe SFSTs to be extremely accurate. Decision analyses revealed that officers'estimates of whether a motorist's BAC was above or below 0.08 were accurate in91 percent of the cases, and estimates of whether a motorist's BAC was above0.04 but under 0.08 were accurate in 94 percent of the decisions to arrest andin 80 percent of the relevant cases, overall. 2 The SFST battery is composed of three tests: Horizontal GazeNystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and One-Leg Stand (OLS); the tests andscoring procedures are described in Appendix A. Table 1 compares the accuracy ofthe SFSTs during the 1981 and 1998 validation studies. In the 1998 study, HGNwas again found to be the most accurate of the component tests in discriminatingabove and below the criterion BAC, and the results of the three SFSTs combinedprovided slightly greater accuracy than the HGN test alone. The most salientdifference between the results of the 1981 and the 1998 validation studies isthe substantial increase in the accuracy of officers' decisions, despite thelower criterion BAC in the 1998 study (0.10 percent BAC in 1981; 0.08 percentBAC in 1998). The greater accuracies of the SFST battery and component testsduring the 1998 study are attributable to the differential experience of theofficers who participated in the two studies. That is, the officers whoparticipated in the original research had learned the procedures as part of the1981 laboratory study; in contrast, the officers who participated in the 1998study had been using the SFSTs for several years to help make arrest decisionsunder operational conditions. Thus, the levels of accuracy observed during the1998 study reflect current conditions and should be considered the validatedmeasures of SFST accuracy. Table 1 Comparison of SFST Accuracy During the 1981 and 1998 Validation Studies SFST(s) % Correct Decisions 1981 % Correct Decisions 1998 SFST(s) 1981 1998SFST Battery (the 3 tests combined) 81 91 Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) 77 88 Walk-and-Turn (WAT) 68 79 One-Leg Stand (OLS) 65 83 Other studies have confirmed the considerable accuracy of theSFSTs to assist officers in making arrest decisions for DWI (Arend, et. al.,1999; Anderson and Burns, 1997; Burns and Anderson, 1995). Officers have foundthe SFSTs to be fully-acceptable for field use and they appreciate thediagnostic value of test results. Further, many prosecutors prefer officers toadminister only the SFSTs to help make arrest decisions for DWI because thetests have been scientifically validated and are defensible in court. NHTSA's SFSTs largely have replaced the unvalidatedperformance tests of unknown merit that once were the patrol officer's onlytools in helping to make post-stop DWI arrest decisions. Regional and localpreferences for other performance tests still exist, even though some of thetests have not been validated. Despite regional differences in what tests areused to assist officers in making DWI arrest decisions, NHTSA's SFSTs presentlyare used in all 50 states. NHTSA's SFSTs have become the standard pre-arrestprocedures for evaluating DWI in most law enforcement agencies. 3 The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test is considered by many law enforcement officers to be the most effective technique to provide evidence of alcohol in a motorist's system. The normal variation in human physical and cognitive capabilities, and the effects of alcohol tolerance, can result in uncertainties when arrest decisions are made exclusively on the basis of physical and/or cognitive performance tests. These uncertainties have resulted in many DWI suspects being released rather than detained and transported to another location for evidentiary chemical testing. This is because some experienced drinkers can perform physical and cognitive tests acceptably, even with a BAC greater than 0.10 percent. However, experienced drinkers cannot conceal the physiological effects of alcohol from an officer who is skilled in HGN administration, because Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus is an involuntary reaction over which an individual has absolutely no control. The Importance of Standardization The validity of SFST results is dependent upon practitionersfollowing the established, standardized procedures for test administration andscoring. NHTSA's SFST Student Manual states that the proceduresdemonstrated in the training program describe how SFSTs should be administeredunder ideal conditions, but that ideal conditions do not always exist in thefield. Variations from ideal conditions, and deviations from the standardizedprocedures, might affect the evidentiary weight that should be given to testresults. Courts in several states have reviewed the admissibility offield sobriety tests that assess physical coordination and have held thatdeviations in the administration of the tests should not result in thesuppression of test results. These courts have found that field sobriety tests,including the Walk-and-Turn and the One-Leg-Stand of the SFST battery, aresimple physical dexterity exercises that can be interpreted by an officer in thefield, and by others in a court of law. However, courts have ruled that theadmissibility of the HGN test may be treated differently due to its "scientificnature." For this reason, HGN results are vulnerable to challenge, and likelyto be excluded by the court, if the test was not administered in strictcompliance with established protocols. Other states have been even less accommodating to deviationsfrom the standardized procedures. In particular, the Ohio State Supreme Courtruled that law enforcement officers have no discretion in the administration ofSFSTs. In a four-to-two decision, the Ohio State Supreme Court held in Ohiov. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2000), that Standardized Field Sobriety Testsconducted in a manner that departs from the methods established by NHTSA "areinherently unreliable" and thus inadmissible. 4 The SFST battery is composed of three separate tests withthree independent predictive validities that range from 79 to 88 percent.Depending on the physical characteristics of the subject and roadsideconditions, an officer might choose to refrain from administering the entireSFST battery, as directed by the training materials (e.g., a leg injury thatmight affect a person's ability to perform the OLS test). Because an officer ispermitted the discretion to withhold a test, it is reasonable to question why adeviation in the administration of one of the three tests would disqualify theentire battery. Although it is not recommended to do so under ideal conditions,the data show that accurate arrest decisions reliably can be made on the basisof two of the SFSTs, or on the basis of HGN test results, alone. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)adopted uniform procedures in 1992 to guide the training of SFST instructors andpractitioners. Those standards include 24-hours of NHTSA-approved SFSTinstruction. The procedures for administering and interpreting SFST results canbe readily learned and, generally, proficiency increases with experience.However, it is possible for SFST skills to degrade if they are not exercisedregularly (e.g., during a prolonged absence from patrol work). Also, the SFSTprocedures have evolved since they were first developed in 1981. Modificationsto the standardized procedures could result in an officer administering SFSTsaccording to outdated protocols. 5 For these reasons, NHTSA recommends that lawenforcement agencies conduct refresher training for SFST instructors andpractitioners. Project Objectives The primary objective of this study is to develop a modelsystem to help law enforcement agencies manage Standardized Field Sobriety Test(SFST) training requirements. A further objective is to explore the feasibilityof establishing and operating a statewide SFST training records system. General Approach Judges in the State of Colorado became concerned withinconsistencies in the testimony of law enforcement officers concerning SFSTadministration and scoring procedures. In response to those concerns,representatives of law enforcement agencies, the Rocky Mountain Institute forTransportation Safety, and the Colorado Department of Transportation developedstandards for SFST instructors and practitioners, based on the NHTSA standards,which include requirements for refresher training. In this regard, the ColoradoSFST standards require that practitioners receive at least two hours ofrefresher training every two years and instructors receive at least eight hoursof refresher training every two years, to maintain their SFST practitioner andinstructor certifications. The statewide regulation took effect in 1999, with atwo-year grandfather clause expiring in November of 2001. The implementation of SFST refresher training requirements by the State ofColorado offers an opportunity to study how law enforcement agencies maintainrecords of training experience to comply with the requirement. The question ofparticular interest is, how do agencies identify when individual SFSTinstructors and practitioners must receive their periodic refresher training?Interviews were conducted with personnel from a sample of Colorado lawenforcement agencies to obtain the information necessary to answer the researchquestions. Various terms are used throughout the UnitedStates for offenses involving drinking and driving. In this report, DrivingWhile Impaired (DWI) is used to refer to all occurrences of driving at or abovethe illegal blood alcohol concentratiion (BAC) limit of a jurisdiction. In addition to the results of the decisionanalysis, the study found statistically significant correlations between SFSTresults and measured BACs ( p =.005); also, the difference between the meanestimated and measured BACs of the 297 motorists tested at roadside during thefield study was very small and operationally irrelevant (i.e., 0.117 vs. 0.122percent BAC, respectively). The Advisory Committee on Highway Safety ofthe International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) recommended in 1986that law enforcement agencies adopt and implement NHTSA's SFSTs and theassociated training program. Officers always should fully comply withNHTSA's guidelines when administering the SFSTs. However, if deviations occur,officers and the courts should understand that any deviation from establishedprocedures relates to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility . For example, the original SFST proceduresspecified that the HGN test not be administered to individuals who were wearinghard contact lenses. The stipulation was made to avoid the possibility of losinga lens as a consequence of the required eye movements. The stipulationeventually was removed when it was recognized that the possibility of dislodginga contact lens was minimal. Continue to Research Table of Contents
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
