See also: BLOOD TESTS; BREATH TESTS
HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS; INTOXICATION
URINE TESTS.

There are a number of field sobriety tests (FSTs), including walking heel‑to‑toe, touching the finger to the nose, standing on one leg, reciting the alphabet. These tests have never been standardized or proven to correspond to specific blood alcohol concentration levels.{footnote}Jennifer L. Pariser, Note: In Vino Veritas: The Truth About Blood Alcohol Presumptions In State Drunk Driving Law, 64 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 141, 160 n. 126 (1989), citing Carper & McCamey, Gaze Nystagmus: Scientific Proof of DUI?, Ill. B.J. 146, 146 (Nov. 1988).{/footnote}  The results of field sobriety tests are admissible to show intoxication,{footnote}People v. Dakuras, 527 N.E.2d 163 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988).{/footnote} without the necessity of expert testimony as to their scientific basis.{footnote}Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 807 (Ga. 1996).{/footnote}  The subjective nature of these tests may be brought out in cross‑examination, but does not affect their admissibility.{footnote}Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 807 (Ga. 1996).{/footnote}  On the other hand, it has been held that a driver’s ability to successfully perform field sobriety tests is irrelevant.{footnote}State v. Boyd, 479 N.E.2d 850, 851 (Ohio 1985). {/footnote}

2.  The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Two decisions by the United States Supreme Court relating to blood tests for alcohol content apply by analogy to field sobriety tests.  In Schmerber v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that because the privilege against self-incrimination extends only to testimonial, as opposed to physical evidence,{footnote}See SELF-INCRIMINATION.{/footnote} the state may compel a person to take a blood test, and that the results of that coerced blood test are admissible.{footnote}384 U.S. 757 (1966).{/footnote}  In South Dakota v. Neville, the Court held that a driver’s refusal to submit to a blood test is also admissible.{footnote}___U.S.____, 103 S. Ct. 916 (1983).{/footnote}  Courts have likewise held that compelling a driver to submit to a field sobriety test does not violate the driver’s privilege against self-incrimination,{footnote}State v. Theriault, 696 P.2d 718, 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984); Weatherford v. State, 692 S.W.2d 605 (Ark. 1985); People v. Boudreau, 115 A.D.2d 652, 496 N.Y.S.2d 489 (1985); Commonwealth v. Brennan, 438 N.E.2d 60 (Mass. 1982); State v. Badon, 401 So. 2d 1178 (La. 1981); State v. Arsenault, 336 A.2d 244 (N.H. 1975); Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 547 A.2d 419, 422 (Pa. Super.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 496 U.S. 582 (1990)
See also Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) (not deciding issue).{/footnote} that refusal to submit to field sobriety tests is admissible to show consciousness of guilt,{footnote}____161 Cal. App. 3d 717, 720, 207 Cal. Rptr. 793; People v. Miller, 447 N.E.2d 1060, 1061 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983); Branch v. State, 932 S.W.2d 577, 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995){/footnote} and that Miranda warnings are not required prior to administering such tests.{footnote}State v. Lee, 908 P.2d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).{/footnote}  Where the police instruct the defendant as to the procedure for the sobriety tests, and the defendant makes unprompted incriminating statements, those statements are admissible into evidence even though Miranda warnings have not been given.{footnote}Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 603-04 (1990).{/footnote}  Where a test requires a verbal response such as counting or reciting the alphabet, however, the defendant’s attempt to complete the test may be inadmissible if it is incriminating.{footnote}See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 604 n. 17 (1990) (in dicta, stating that suspect’s responses to a question requiring him to calculate the date of his sixth birthday should have been suppressed because testimonial in nature and no Miranda warnings given beforehand).
Vickers v. State, 878 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (where police required suspect to recite alphabet from "f" to "w" and to count backwards from 90 to 75, response was testimonial and therefore inadmissible where Miranda warnings had not been given beforehand).
But see Branch v. State, 932 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (requesting the recitation of the alphabet does not constitute interrogation because question not designed to lead to confusion).{/footnote}

Bibliography

S. Brent & S. Stiller, Handling Drunk Driving Cases (1985).
Jay M. Zitter, Annnotation, Admissibility In Criminal Case Of Evidence That Accused Refused To Take Test Of Intoxication, 26 A.L.R.4th 1112 (19__).