San Antonio Injury Attorney Blog

In our last blog entry, we discussed the basics of the Bexar County HGN Sobriety Field Test . In this blog entry, we will now discuss some inherent weaknesses of the HGN test as a test of intoxication. A seasoned San Antonio criminal defense lawyer will be able to employ certain techniques to demonstrate to a jury the inherent weaknesses of the HGN test as a test of intoxication.

There are certain time periods in the NHSTA manual regarding the administration of the HGN test that must be followed. Specifically, there is a certain length of time that must be met in the "smooth pursuit" test as the officer moves the flashlight in front of the driver's eyes. When the officer directs the flashlight to the side, that light must be held at maximum deviation for a specified time. A well trained Bexar County or Wilson County DWI lawyer will scrutinize the DWI video and make sure the tests are done within the proper time parameters according the NHSTA standards.

We know that under the HGN test, there can be up to 6 clues of intoxication - three (3) clues in each eye. According to the NHSTA manual, when four (4) or more clues are present whether it's through lack of smooth pursuit, a distinct nystagmus, and onset of nystagmus before a 45 degree angle, the HGN is accurate a little over 75% of the time. This 75% rate means that inherently the HGN test has a 25% rate of error when it comes to predicting intoxication. A 25% rate of error is certainly not a low enough rate of error in any juror's mind to demonstrate legal intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.

A strong San Antonio DWI lawyer will also attack the statement of the NHSTA that a driver's Blood Alcohol Concentration is above .10, when there are at least 4 clues present during the HGN test. There is absolutely no scientific basis for such an assumption and such a statement is likely to be suppressed at a hearing.

When the HGN test is not performed per NHSTA specifications, then it is an invalid test and it can be argued that it is not valid evidence. A strong Texas DWI attorney will argue to a jury that incorrect performance of the HGN test renders any assumptions about intoxication clues worthless.

Another weakness in HGN administration stems from the presence of the patrol vehicle's overhead lights. The flashing of the overhead lights can alter the gaze and the arresting officer must admit that the flashing overhead lights will render the test invalid. In fact, facing traffic at night from passing traffic can also hurt the effectiveness of the HGN test.

There are also issues with estimation of a forty-five (45) degree angle on the driver's eyes. Exactly how does the officer estimate that the driver's eyes have reached a forty-five degree angle? The officer will counter by stating he can determine the angle based on the shoulder of the person. However, inherently, that is a bad way to estimate the 45 degrees because the distance between the head and the shoulders varies from person to person.

There is also the difficult question of exactly how the officer detects the nystagmus or the eye bounce - it is incredibly subtle. How good is the officer's own eyes - does he wear glasses or contact lenses?

In the next blog entry, we will continue to discuss additional ways for a San Antonio DWI attorney to attack the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Standard Field Sobriety Test.

In our last blog entry on general issues regarding Texas DWI SFSTs , we touched on the three (3) major field sobriety tests. Today, we will discuss the first major SFST. In Bexar County and surrounding Wilson and Atascosa County, a seasoned San Antonio DWI lawyer must deal with challenging the first major DWI Field Sobriety Test (SFST): Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN). During this SFST, an arresting officer will employ a flashlight and position the flashlight in front of a driver's eyes.

The flashlight is moved back and forth to test whether a driver's eyes will involuntarily jerk or bounce when the eye rotates far to the left or right. Physiologists call the bounce a nystagmus and the jerk of the eyes will usually occur to the left or right, making it a horizontal nystagmus as opposed to a vertical nystagmus.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Manual, there are three clues of intoxication related to the HGN test for each eye for a total of six (6) possible clues. The three basic HGN clues are a lack of smooth pursuit by the eye, a distinct jerking or nystagmus, and a jerking of the eye before it reaches a forty-five (45) degree angle.

With respect to a lack of smooth pursuit, the officer must determine the answers to the following basic questions as he moves the flashlight back and forth across the driver's eyes. First, can the driver actually follow the light in a smooth manner without the eye bouncing? If there is a jerk of the eyes, then that is considered a clue of intoxication. A common thread in every DWI report is the police officer's observation that he observed a lack of smooth pursuit in the eyes while conducting the HGN test.

The 2nd clue is whether the police officer detected a distinct jerking of the eye. The officer will position the light as far to the right or left as possible and hold the light there for several moments to determine if there is a distinct jerking of the eye. The magic words for the 2nd clue that police officers often annotate on their reports is a "distinct and sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation".

The 3rd clue is whether the jerking of the eye commences before the eye moves 45 degrees. If there is a jerking of the eye before the 45 degree angle, then that can be noted as another clue of intoxication.

In many San Antonio DWI cases, there may be a mention of vertical nystagmus (VGN), which would entail an up and down jerking of the eyes as they look up as opposed to HGN , the left or right jerking. No reliable scientific data exists on vertical nystagmus, even though the NHSTA manual states onset of VGN is a reliable demonstration of high amounts of alcohol or drug intoxication. A Bexar County or Atascosa County DWI lawyer can move to suppress this type of junk science on VGN since it does not have scientific reliability.

There are basic Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) prescribed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the Walk and Turn (WAT), and the One-Leg Stand (OLS). A San Antonio DWI lawyer will have a strong grasp of how Texas law enforcement is supposed to administer the tests and the specific vulnerable areas in each test that are open for challenge.

There are some basic general concepts regarding SFSTs. The SFSTs are constructed in such a manner so that the participant WILL fail them. Within a short time after the driver has exited the vehicle, law enforcement has already decided that the driver is intoxicated and only seeks SFSTs to convince a jury on video. The SFSTs must be administered by qualified law enforcement. A San Antonio criminal defense lawyer will obtain proof of certification from the Texas Commission of Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (TCLEOSE) . Moreover, active certification only lasts 2 years before the officer requires recertification. Therefore, there is the very real possibility that an officer is not properly certified to administer the SFSTs.

In our last blog entry, we discussed how San Antonio law enforcement will use distracting questions that are not DWI standard tests in order to see if the driver can perform different tasks at once. This "unusual" questions technique continues while the officer gets ready to administer the SFSTs. The officer will ask the driver to move to a different position before each SFST to demonstrate on video if the driver sways and stumbles while moving to a different area of the roadway.

Texas law enforcement will not make notations on the report that an allegedly intoxicated driver moved steadily without stumbling to different sections of the roadway to perform SFSTs - it is up to a Texas DWI defense lawyer to point out to the jury and on officer questioning that the driver was exhibiting signs of non-intoxication in his movements.

Whether the driver is intoxicated or not, the SFSTs have characteristics that make failure inevitable. The Bexar County District Attorney and SAPD will point out all the negative points concerning the driver's participation on the SFSTs - a strong Bexar County DWI lawyer must educate a jury about all the clues of non-intoxication.

In our last blog entry on phases of the Texas DWI Stop , we discussed Phase 1 (Vehicle in Motion) and Phase 2 (Personal Contact). When we left off, we discussed how a police officer will try to divide the attention of driver by asking distracting questions to see if the driver can handle "divided attention" tasks.

Another tactic which is not used by the San Antonio Police that much is to ask unusual questions. These are not standard tests - for example, a police officer might ask the driver to recite the alphabet from "F" to "Q" instead of the normal ABCs. Another unusual question is counting backwards from 79 to 60. The bottom line is than any jury member, when given such questions, whether or not they are intoxicated , would tend to get confused.

The "unusual question" test is not a Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST) and a San Antonio DWI defense lawyer will use trial motions to have the court exclude such test. If these tests are not excluded, the officer will still be forced to admit under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Manual, an inability to perform or answer such unusual tests / questions does not constitute probable cause for intoxication.

The next aspect of Phase 2 is the driver's exit from the vehicle. How the driver exits will give the officer certain cues as to intoxication that are usually captured on video and become part of the police report. If a driver literally has to crawl out of his vehicle or leans noticeably against his car once he exits, then such behavior become intoxication clues. However, if the vehicle itself is a mini sports coup, then climbing out of a vehicle is not necessarily a sign of intoxication. Propping up one's back against a vehicle may also be considered a normal thing to do. There have been instances where the DWI video will actually show an assistant police officer using his arms against the vehicle to support himself while the driver is being questioned.

In our next blog entry, we will cover Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) in which officers test a driver's balance and coordination as well as their ability to comprehend and execute verbal and physical instructions. If you have been charged with a DWI, contact a San Antonio DWI Defense attorney without delay to protect your rights and preserve key evidence.

In the majority of DWI cases in San Antonio, the Bexar County District Attorney usually has a video demonstrating the alleged offender performing a series of field sobriety tests with a breathalyzer score over the legal limit of .08.

Given these elements, you may feel that a San Antonio DWI lawyer has very little chance of obtaining acquittal. This blog entry will cover some aspects of how a DWI defense attorney can reveal the shortcomings of both the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) and readings from the Intoxilyzer-5000 breathalyzer.

Officers in the San Antonio Police Department receive their training on how to conduct DWI arrests from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)manual. This manual lists several important standards that must be met in order for officer to properly detect intoxicated drivers and properly conduct the SFSTs.

Many times, a Bexar County DWI lawyer will know the NHTSA manual better than the arresting officer, and the attorney can exploit the officer's lack of knowledge concerning proper administration of SFSTs.

There are three (3) specific phases of the DWI stop. The first phase occurs when the vehicle is in motion. The NHSTA manual lists twenty-four (24) visual cues of impairment. Yet many of these cues can be due to simple explanations like talking on a cell phone or changing out a CD from the stereo. These innocent explanations can explain why a car could be seen drifting. It is important to note that one of the 24 cues for drunken impairment is not speeding. On cross-examination, the officer will admit that a stop for speeding does not justify a DWI stop.

The second phase of the DWI stop is personal contact with the driver, where the officer can employ senses of sight, hearing, and smell. Read any DWI arrest report, and you will see some common trends. Invariably, the officer always states that he saw the driver with blood shot eyes ; he heard the driver slur his speech and state he drank a specific number of drinks; and the officer smelled alcohol on the driver’s breath or an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle.

The video often demonstrates the officer asking the driver to exit the vehicle, but not before the "pre-exit" interview. During this phase of the officer's investigation, the officer engages the driver in a concept known as "divided attention". That is, the officer will request the driver to do multiple things at once, such as showing both the license and registration. The objective of the "divided attention" test is to determine if the person has issues concentrating on two or more things simultaneously, which may be a sign of impairment. Another common "divided attention" tactic is to ask the alleged suspect distracting questions such as where they were driving as the person searches for the license and registration.

A San Antonio DWI attorney will effectively be able to argue to a jury that any person, whether or not they are intoxicated, will stop searching for a license / registration when a police officer interrupts them or the person may stop searching when the officer asks another question. These are natural tendencies and do not signify a person is intoxicated.