#image_title
Yes. Field sobriety test results can be challenged in an Indiana OVWI case. Officers must properly instruct, administer, observe, and score standardized tests. Medical conditions, footwear, road conditions, weather, traffic, anxiety, and mistakes by the officer can all affect how reliable the results appear.
Generally, roadside field sobriety tests are voluntary in Indiana. Declining these tests is different from refusing a chemical test after an officer invokes Indiana’s implied-consent law.
That distinction matters.
Indiana calls drunk driving operating a vehicle while intoxicated, or OVWI. Police investigating a suspected OVWI often use field sobriety tests to collect evidence of impairment and help establish probable cause for an arrest.
Think about what the officer is asking you to do. You may be standing beside a highway at midnight. It could be cold, windy, dark, or raining. Cars may be flying past you. Then you’re asked to perform unfamiliar physical tasks while a police officer watches every movement.
This is not exactly your living room.
More importantly, field sobriety tests are investigative tools. The officer is collecting evidence.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, commonly called NHTSA, recognizes a standardized battery of three field sobriety tests:
These tests are standardized for a reason. The instructions and administration procedures matter.
A field sobriety test is not simply an officer saying, “He looked drunk to me.” The officer is supposed to perform a specific test in a specific way.
That gives a defense lawyer something concrete to examine.
An attorney can compare the officer’s HGN administration against the officer’s NHTSA training.
During the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the officer looks for involuntary jerking of the eyes. Proper positioning, timing, movement, and observation are important parts of the procedure.
Body-camera footage can become particularly useful here.
Did the officer position the stimulus properly? Did the officer move it at the appropriate speed? Did the officer spend enough time checking for the required clues?
If an officer rushes through a standardized test, the defense can challenge the reliability of the resulting observations.
The State does not get to call something “standardized” and then pretend the standard does not matter.
Yes. The walk-and-turn test depends heavily on instructions, testing conditions, and how the officer scores the driver’s performance.
Imagine trying to walk heel-to-toe on cracked pavement or loose gravel. Now imagine an officer counting a small adjustment during your turn as evidence of intoxication.
That is why video matters.
A defense attorney can review body-camera footage to determine whether:
A police report gives you the officer’s description. Video can show you what actually happened.
Those two things do not always tell exactly the same story.
Yes. Physical and medical conditions can affect balance, coordination, eye movement, and a person’s ability to perform roadside tests.
Relevant circumstances may include:
Suppose someone struggles with the one-leg stand because of an old knee injury. The officer may record a balance problem. That does not automatically establish that alcohol caused it.
Context matters.
The defense should investigate whether there is an innocent explanation for what the officer interpreted as impairment.
Absolutely. Field sobriety testing does not happen in a laboratory.
It happens in the real world.
A driver may be dealing with uneven pavement, gravel, freezing temperatures, strong wind, darkness, flashing emergency lights, and fast-moving traffic. The person may also be experiencing considerable stress from being investigated for drunk driving.
Those conditions matter when evaluating performance.
A stumble on a perfectly flat floor under controlled conditions is one thing. A stumble beside an Indiana highway with semis roaring past is another.
A jury should be allowed to understand the difference.
No. A poor performance on field sobriety tests does not automatically mean an Indiana OVWI conviction.
The State still has to prove the criminal charge.
As the firm’s prior writing explains, an Indiana OVWI case ultimately requires the prosecution to prove the elements of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Field sobriety observations can be part of that evidence, but they are not the entire case.
A defense lawyer can examine the traffic stop, the officer’s instructions, body-camera footage, testing conditions, medical explanations, scoring, chemical testing, and the remaining evidence.
The important question is not simply, “Did the officer say you failed?”
The better question is, “How reliable is the evidence behind that conclusion?”
That is where careful OVWI defense begins.
If you or a loved one is facing an OVWI charge in Indiana after a roadside stop, an arrest is not a conviction. Contact the Marc Lopez Law Firm at 463-222-0896 to speak with a lawyer today.
And remember—always plead the 5th.