Source: https://www.golegalllc.com/request-to-perform-field-sobriety-tests/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:54:09+00:00

Document:
As discussed in previous articles, the initial stop of a motorist can be based on something as minimal as having an inoperable license plate light. So, how do officers turn a stop for a simple traffic violation into a DUI investigation?
A request to perform field sobriety tests is a greater invasion of an individual’s liberty interests than the initial stop. Therefore, such a request must be justified by Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion that the motorist is intoxicated. 2 The reasonable and articulable suspicion analysis is based on the collection of factors. 3 A police officer must weigh the totality of the circumstances to determine whether sufficient objective facts exist to create reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired. The officer may then detain the driver long enough to confirm and/or deny his suspicions. A number of factors indicating impairment must be present before a trial court could approve the officer’s decision to conduct field sobriety tests. 4.
The time and day of the stop (Friday or Saturday night as opposed to, e.g., Tuesday morning).
The location of the stop (whether near establishments selling alcohol).
Whether there is a cognizable report that the driver may be intoxicated.
The condition of the suspect’s eyes (bloodshot, glassy, glazed, etc.).
Impairments of the suspect’s ability to speak (slurred speech, deliberate speech).
The odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car, or, more significantly, on the suspect’s person or breath.
Any indicia of erratic driving Before the stop that may indicate a lack of coordination (speeding, weaving, unusual braking, etc.).
Any actions by the suspect after the stop that might indicate a lack of coordination (dropping keys, falling over, fumbling for a wallet, etc.).
Over time, police officers have picked up on the fact that they must include these factors in their investigative reports in order to overcome 4th Amendment challenges. As long as they use a few of these “buzz words” they can typically justify the decision to conduct field sobriety tests.
Research from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (the agency that provides police officers with their DUI detection training) have also concluded that many of these factors are not reliable indicators of alcohol impairment.
NHTSA has never included “glossy,” “glassy” or “glazed” eyes as one of the post stop indicators an officer could reasonably rely on when assessing alcohol impairment. The presence of Glassy or Glossy eyes was considered and evaluated, but not recommended as a reliable indicator for alcohol impairment in the final version of the DWI Detection Guide. 8 The terms: “Glassy Eyes”, “Glossy Eyes”, “Glazed Eyes” are NOT found anywhere in the NHTSA DUI Detection Manuals (both Instructor and Student Manuals).
No matter how much experience and training an officer may have, he does not have super powers. In 1999, NHTSA researchers conducted a study that concluded there is no statistically significant correlation between a subject’s BAC level and the strength of the odor of alcohol on the subject’s breath. 10 The officer’s estimate of BAC levels based on odor of alcohol failed to rise above random guesses. 11.
In sum, bloodshot eyes, glassy eyes, and odor of alcohol are not reliable indicators of impairment. Nevertheless, judges across Ohio accept police officers’ testimony regarding these factors to support their decision to conduct field sobriety tests. This needs to stop. The precedent needs to be challenged. Canton DUI Lawyers and Massillon DUI Lawyers must be prepared with the knowledge arguments necessary to change the status quo in the DUI arena.
State v. Evans (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 56, 62, 711 N.E.2d 761 (quoting State v. Yemma (Ohio App. 11 Dist. 1996), 1996 WL 495076, 3.).
State v. Batchili (2007), 113 Ohio St.3d 403, 2007-Ohio-2204, ¶ 19.
State v. Dixon, 2nd Dist. No. 2000-CA-30, 2000 WL 1760664 (Dec. 1, 2000) (“Although, in the case before us, the police officer observed glassy, bloodshot eyes, that observation is readily explained by the lateness of the hour, 2:20 a .m.”); Whitehouse v. Stricklin, 6th Dist. No. L-10-1277, 2012-Ohio-1877, (the time of day could have accounted for the bloodshot eyes); State v. Keserich, 2014 Ohio 5120 (cigarette smoke causes bloodshot eyes).
Accident Analysis and Prevention: Police officers’ detection of breath odors from alcohol ingestion, (1999) 175-180.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.