Seated Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: An Added Tool for the Roadside Officer

While I was a young Illinois prosecutor of Boating Under the Influence cases on the Mississippi River, I encountered what appeared to me to be a new phenomenon in the DUI world. Having prosecuted hundreds of impaired driving cases that occurred on the roadway, I was very familiar with what is commonly known as the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). This battery of tests consists of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (HGN), the Walk and Turn Test (WAT) and the One Leg Stand Test (OLS). When the Illinois Department of Natural Resources took me out on a ride-along on the mighty Mississippi to learn more about maritime patrol and conservation offenses, I was treated to a different battery of tests that were conducted on boat operators suspected of being under the influence. These tests were performed while in the seated position.

That day, I experienced firsthand the challenges to detecting impairment of a boat operator. First and foremost, there is the limited space of the vessel. Most boats are not sufficient in length to perform the WAT test. Additionally, and even more problematic is the fact that the boat is constantly in motion, thus prohibiting both the WAT and OLS tests. Even if the individual is transported to shore, having “sea legs” is a common complaint. Moving the subject to shore can also present custody issues. Coupled with the fact that there are often other concerns such as safety with passengers left on the vessel, along with the risk of an impaired person falling overboard, and the feasibility of the standing SFSTs have just fallen by the wayside.

A brief history of the validation studies regarding the standing SFSTs is worth mentioning here. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sponsored various studies by contracting with the Southern California Research Institute (SCRI). Their mission was to develop standardized field sobriety tests that could assist an officer in discriminating a BAC at .10 or higher. This endeavor led to additional studies in the 1990s that were validated through research. The most recent field validation study was conducted in San Diego, California in 1998. In that study, the SCRI concluded that when experienced officers observed the minimum number of clues on the SFST 3-test battery of the HGN, WAT and OLS tests, officers were able to make the correct arrest/release decision on subjects with a 0.08 BAC or higher 91% of the time. In 2003, Dr. Karl Citek concluded in a separate study that the HGN test could be performed on someone in the seated or supine position. Furthermore, Dr. Marcelline Burns subsequently determined in a 2007 study that slight variations to the administration of the HGN test did not change the efficacy of the test.

We would be remiss if we believed that people did not consume alcohol or other recreational drugs while out on the water. Recognizing the limitations of the standing SFSTs in a maritime environment, the U.S. Coast Guard explored the development and standardization of seated field sobriety tests all the way back in 1987. That study conducted in-house, utilized six different tests that a subject could perform in a seated position. The results of the study revealed that officers could effectively administer a seated battery of tests in a boat and arrive at the same correct arrest/release decision as on land. However, more scientific research was needed.

From 2007-2010, the Coast Guard funded a 3-year study sponsored by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA). They turned to the same scientists at the SCRI that NHTSA had used to conduct their research. The goal was to develop a battery of tests that officers could use at detecting impairment at or above .08 BAC on subjects in the seated position. These tests would need to be easy to administer and could not rely on a person’s equilibrium. By the third year of the study, four tests (HGN, finger to nose, palm pat, and hand coordination) were identified as being ideal for the stated purposes. For each of these tests, the SCRI identified standardized administrative procedures, standardized clues, and standardized evaluation criteria.

In 2010, these tests were validated in the field at the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. Most significantly. the field validation study revealed that when the required number of clues were observed for all the tests, the combined results accurately predicted the subject's BAC was 0.08 or greater 91% of the time. This is the exact same level of accuracy for determining a BAC of 0.08 or above as the most recent standing SFST battery study from San Diego. The SCRI was also the exact same entity that provided scientific validation for the standing SFSTs and Dr. Fiorentino was the same research scientist who worked on the development of the battery of tests for both. He published his research on the seated SFSTs in a peer-reviewed article in the “Accident Analysis & Prevention Journal” in 2010.

After my exposure to the seated SFSTs on the waterways of the Mississippi, I began to recognize many missed opportunities where the seated SFSTs would have been helpful to roadside officers. Two specific examples come to mind. An officer stopped a vehicle and encountered a young woman who was a paraplegic and was operating with hand controls. She appeared to possibly be impaired. What are the options in that scenario? Another missed opportunity was when a Sheriff’s deputy asked the subject if he had any physical problems that would prohibit him from performing the standing SFSTs. He responded by unclicking his prosthetic leg, pulling it out of the bottom of his pants and laying it across the hood of the officer’s squad car. Again, what options does an officer have in this situation?

There are countless more examples I could provide. These are just two of the more obvious ones. Numerous other missed opportunities to determine impairment come to mind where defendants in court introduce evidence of old sports’ injuries, back problems, vestibular issues such as vertigo and the list goes on and on. All too often, officers are presented with situations where the impaired driver can’t perform the standing SFSTs that all officers are taught at the basic academy level. This typically occurs when physical infirmities, age, weight or weather/road conditions prohibit the officer from using the standing SFSTs. Furthermore, repeat offenders have familiarized themselves with these tests. When the WAT and OLS tests are compromised due to the aforementioned issues, relying on the results of the HGN test alone has not been proven to be successful in determining impairment.

Systemically, we must provide officers with additional tools to determine impairment of subjects on the roadways. Additionally, employing the use of seated SFSTs would give subjects every opportunity to perform well on tests that do not rely so heavily on their physical performance in cases where their age, weight, past injuries or unique physical limitations may impact the ability to complete the battery of tests to detect impairment.