Opinion ID: 2119657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: establishment of impairment by field sobriety tests

Text: In his third assignment of error, Prescott assigns that the field sobriety tests administered to him did not establish that he was impaired and contends that accordingly, Almquist lacked probable cause to arrest him. Almquist administered three field sobriety tests to Prescott in advance of a PBT: the HGN test, the nine-step walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg stand test. Prescott successfully completed the one-leg stand test, but showed signs of impairment on the other two. Starting first with the HGN test, Prescott argues that Almquist did not perform the test in keeping with the requirements set forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration manual [19] detailing the test. In particular, Prescott complains that the manual indicates that the test should take 80 seconds, but that it did not take Almquist 80 seconds to administer the test. This court has held that a police officer may testify to the results of HGN field sobriety testing if it is shown that the officer has been adequately trained in the administration and assessment of the test and has conducted the testing and assessment in accordance with that training. [20] In this case, Almquist testified to his training regarding the HGN test. He explained what the HGN test was and explained that impaired persons often show an involuntary jerking of the eye, known as nystagmus. In addition, Almquist explained the steps he took to administer the test to Prescott and testified that Prescott showed four indicators on the test, demonstrating impairment. This finding of impairment is consistent with the manual. The manual indicates that with four indicators present, it is likely that a person's blood alcohol concentration is above .10. Prescott's argument appears to be without merit. First, it is not at all clear from the record exactly how long it took Almquist to perform the test. Nor is there anything in the record, in particular in the manual, suggesting that the HGN indicators are not valid if the test did not take 80 seconds to perform. Finally, the manual itself notes: The procedures outlined in this manual describe how the [field sobriety tests] are to be administered under ideal conditions. We recognize that the [tests] will not always be administered under ideal conditions in the field, because such conditions will not always exist. Even when administered under less than ideal conditions, they will generally serve as valid and useful indicators of impairment. Slight variations from the ideal ... may have some affect [sic] on the evidentiary weight given to the results. However, this does not necessarily make the [tests] invalid. [21] We next turn to the nine-step walk-and-turn test. Prescott argues that Almquist could have asked him proper medical questions pursuant to his training [22] to establish whether his normal gait [23] could have caused him to miss the heel-to-toe steps during this particular field sobriety test. But Prescott does not argue that he actually does suffer from any abnormality in his normal gait. There is no evidence in the record that Prescott's inability to successfully complete the nine-step walk-and-turn test was due to his normal gait. Moreover, this would not affect the admissibility of the test results, but instead goes to the weight or credibility of this evidence. Prescott's third assignment of error is without merit.