Columbus DUI Defense Lawyer Firm Overview Attorney Profiles Case Results Client Reviews Frequently Asked Questions Case Evaluation Contact Us
Columbus DUI Defense Attorney
Read our clients reviews Watch our Videos


I have been representing people charged with DUI in Ohio since 1994 on a daily basis.  In nearly 95% of my cases, I've had to deal with evidence of field sobriety tests.  These roadside exercises are hard for anyone to do, let alone when a person is scared.  So, what is the science behind the standard battery of field sobriety tests (standing on one leg, the walk and turn, and the pen in front of the eye test (HGN))?

In a nutshell, these exercises were developed by two researchers in the late 1970's - Dr. Marcelline Burns and Dr. Herb Moskowitz.  Both researchers were with the brand new institute called the Southern California Research Institute.  Dr. Moskowitz had been doing research on rats and the effects of alcohol and other drugs.  When the federal government issued a Request for Proposals in 1975 to come up with some roadside DUI tests, SCRI won the contract.  From what I can tell, it is one of the very first research projects Marcelline Burns did.  In fact, on her CV, I have not seen any other published projects before 1975. 

Dr. Burns first report to the federal government was issued in 1977 (Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Administration, DOT-HS-5-01242).  238 volunteers and 10 police officers from Los Angeles county participated in this lengthy study.  All 238 volunteers were tested in a laboratory setting, not roadside.  Nor were any of the volunteers under the threat of arrest.  The published false arrest rate from the 1977 study was an alarming 47%!  That means that 101 of the 238 people "arrested" for DUI, 47 had a blood alcohol level below the legal limit. 

In 1981, Dr. Burns submitted another study on field sobriety tests to the federal government.  (Development and Field Test of Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Administration, DOT-HS-8-01970).  This time, in order to lower the error rate, 78% of the subjects were dosed with alcohol at either a very high level (.150% or greater) or doses at a very small level (.050% or below).  In other words, nearly 80% of the subjects were what we call "gimmes". 

The error rate dropped from 47% to 32%.  That means that of the 118 people "arrested" for DUI, 37 of them were improperly accused of DUI.  More startlingly, of the 37 people falsely accused of DUI, 18 subjects had absolutely no alcohol in their system!   

So, if you or someone you know was arrested for DUI primarily on the basis of "failing" field sobriety tests, it is highly recommended that you consult with a lawyer with a deep understanding of the alleged science behind these roadside exercises.

Categories: DUI
Read more of our case results
DUI Defense
2008 Ohio DUI Law Change
7 Stages of Alcohol Impairment
A DUI Case Study
Ohio Driver's License Law
Accident Hits Skip & DUI
Alcohol Assessments
BMV Hearings
Breath & Blood Tests
Brokers & Bankers
CDL Truck Drivers and DUI
Columbus Ohio DUI / OVI
Commercial DUI
Common Driving Signs
Cross Examination of DUI Officer
Current Laws Regarding Ohio DUI / OVI
Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Nurses
Driving on Suspended License
DUI & Probation Terms
DUI Case Results / Info
DUI With Injury
Field Sobriety Tests
Getting a New ID after DUI
Implied Consent - Refusal
Impounded Vehicles
Living Out of State
Multiple DUI's
Ohio BUI
Ohio DMV Points Chart
Ohio DUI / Ohio OVI Appellate
Ohio DUI / OVI Overview
Ohio DUI / OVI Penalties
Ohio DUI Regulations
Penalties for DUI
Pilots the FAA & DUI
Plead Guilty?
Police Officers & Firefighters
Prior Convictions
Restoring Driving License After DUI
Roadside DUI Field Sobriety Testing
Sales Reps & Company Cars
Sentencing Charts
Teachers and Bus Drivers
Under 21 DUI
Unlawful Police Stop
What to Tell Your Employer
Yellow License Plates
Criminal Defense
View our blog
Contact us today

Attorney Web Design

The information on this Columbus OVI Attorney website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

NOTICE: The act of inquiring about representation to The Koffel Law Firm does not establish a client-lawyer relationship. Your inquiry will be kept confidential. Submitting an inquiry does not obligate The Koffel Law Firm to respond. Also, a confidential inquiry on this website does not prevent The Koffel Law Firm from representing a co-defendant or adverse party.