Opinion ID: 2114349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Challenge to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact

Text: Defendant argues that the findings of fact upon which the trial court's conclusion was based are erroneous. She takes particular exception to the trial court's uncritical acceptance of the American Optometric Association's resolution and its reliance on case law from other states that predates some of the more current scientific literature. In its written findings of fact, the trial court stated that the long-standing resolution of the American Optometric Association declaring the HGN test `to be a scientifically valid and reliable tool for trained officers to use in field sobriety testing' is compelling evidence showing a sufficient consensus in the scientific community to allow HGN testimony in Illinois courts. The resolution was introduced into evidence via the testimony of Citek, who, on cross-examination, could provide no background information regarding the purpose for which it was proposed, the circumstances under which the resolution was adopted, or the debate, if any, over the proposal. The American Optometric Association is a professional organization, not a scientific body. Its goals are to set professional standards, lobby government and other organizations on behalf of the profession, and to provide leadership for research and education. See http://www.aoa.org (last visited February 1, 2010). According to Citek's testimony, not all members of the profession are members of the Association. We do not believe that a resolution adopted by the members of a professional organization can be considered evidence of consensus among the members of that profession. Of the 36,000 actual members, it is likely that a fraction were present at the American Optometric Association House of Delegates in 1993 when this resolution was adopted and when it was subsequently reaffirmed. The record contains no information as to the number of members voting for or against the resolution. Thus, rather than expressing general acceptance, the resolution expresses the opinion of a relatively small number of members of the profession. Further, the purpose of the American Optometric Association resolution was to urge doctors of optometry to become involved as professional consultants in the use of HGN field sobriety testing. Thus, rather than expressing a considered professional opinion on the science underlying HGN testing, the resolution expressed an interest in urging members to take advantage of a professional opportunity being created by the emerging acceptance of HGN testing by law enforcement agencies. Thus, we agree with the defendant on this point and give no weight whatsoever to the Association's resolution. Each party provided the trial court with journal articles and other literature in support of its position. The State introduced into evidence a volume entitled DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (cited therein as DOT HS 178 R2/06), published by the NHTSA as a training manual for students participating in training for field-sobriety testing. Six pages of the volume are devoted to the subject of nystagmus. The volume outlines a 10-step procedure for performing a field test for HGN. DOT HS 178 R2/06, at VIII-7. The volume also contains a bibliography listing 34 Scientific Publications and Research Reports Addressing Nystagmus. The actual reports and publications are not included. Given this lack of content regarding the science underlying HGN field testing, we find nothing in this volume relevant to the question of general acceptance in the relevant scientific field. The State also submitted journal articles by several of its expert witnesses and others on the subject of HGN testing and the relationship of HGN to impairment due to consumption of alcohol or other drugs. Many of these publications were prepared under contract to the NHTSA. In addition, the State provided the report of the initial 1977 laboratory study that has served as the basis for the widespread adoption of HGN field testing. The study was sponsored by the NHTSA for the purpose of evaluating the field-sobriety tests being used by police officers at that time, identifying tests that would provide the most reliable evidence of a blood-alcohol concentration above the legal limit, and standardizing the procedures for administering these tests. M. Burns & H. Moskowitz, Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest, DOT HS-802 424, June 1977, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Ten officers administered a battery of six tests, including HGN, to 238 subjects. Some of the subjects were given alcohol prior to testing; others were given a placebo. The subjects' blood-alcohol concentrations were measured and shown to be in the zero to 0.15 range. The officers were instructed to arrest any subject they believed to have a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.10 or higher, based on the results of six field-sobriety tests. They made correct arrest decisions in 76% of cases. Analysis of the data led to the recommendation that accuracy could be improved by reducing the number of tests to a battery of three: one-leg stand, walk-and-turn, and HGN. Based on our review of the initial study and the other articles provided by the State, several themes emerge. First, alcohol and CNS-depressant drugs affect the neural centers in the brain that control eye movements, as well as other centers of the brain. Second, HGN correlates highly with both an elevated blood-alcohol concentration and with cognitive impairment. Third, an individual may fail the HGN test by showing 4 or more clues despite a blood-alcohol concentration below the legal limit for driving. Such a person may or may not be impaired for driving. Fourth, to be a reliable indicator of alcohol consumption, HGN field testing must be performed in accordance with the NHTSA protocol. Fifth, police officers can be trained to distinguish HGN due to consumption of alcohol or other substances from some other common forms of nystagmus. Defendant argues that the literature she provides is more current than that relied upon by the State and that, as a result, it calls into doubt continued reliance on HGN testing as a field-sobriety test, despite acceptance by several state courts in the years after the initial 1977 study. Several articles written by expert witness Rubenzer are provided. The articles are descriptive, in that they summarize research done by others rather than report on independent research. In brief summary, these articles conclude that HGN testing is being improperly used by law enforcement. The HGN field test was originally developed by Burns and others as a tool to screen drivers to determine whether blood-alcohol concentration testing was justified. The test was not designed to determine whether the subject is impaired for driving and its use for this purpose has not been validated by controlled studies. Further, Rubenzer asserts that the developers of the test, along with prosecutors, have oversold the test. Among the other articles provided by defendant, several are taken from defense-oriented journals and others from the Web sites of attorneys who engage in DUI defense practice. While the points made by Rubenzer and others are worth noting, we find nothing in the materials provided by defendant to contradict the five general points listed above that we found supported by the literature provided by the State. In sum, while we agree with defendant that the American Optometric Association's resolution is not worthy of consideration under Frye, we reject her assertion that the trial court's findings of fact are erroneous. In any event, because we are engaged in de novo review, we are not bound by those findings.