April 22 update: based on response, I am attaching the validation studies for your download

OK, so your client refused the breath, blood or urine test, and the state wants to go forward with the case. Your client wants a trial and now you are staring at the field tests and need to find a way to minimize the damage the officer will attribute to them.

What if I told you that they were irrelevant and should be suppressed?

You see, the SFST battery was developed to assist officers in determining who was above 0.10 (now “validated at 0.08”) but the research on these tests was never meant to establish that a person could or could not drive.

It says so directly in the the research (but you would have to read all the research to find it)

Until now.

I am attaching to this blog post a motion you can file to suppress the use of the field tests in a common law DUI case. They are simply irrelevant. The motion cites the research studies, but I have not attached them to the post. You can contact me privately if you need them.

There are no refusal cases which say that the field tests can be used to show the inability to drive – rightfully so – how many people do you know who drive while walking a straight line, or while looking at a pen being moved 12 inches from their face. Connecticut courts have not addressed this specific issue….yet. Learn about the refusal case in these recent studies.

Motion to Suppress Field Tests in Common Law Case

1998 San Diego Validation Study

1997 NHTSA The Detection of DWI at BACS Below 0.10

1997 Florida Validation Study of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery