Georgia DUI Cases of Note


Smith v State - DUI Field Evaluations are always admissible

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

field sobriety tests dont walkState v. Smith, A14A1127, November 14, 2014. James Smith was charged with DUI less safe and failure to maintain lane. Following a hearing, the trial court suppressed two of the field evaluations performed by the Officer because they were not performed according to his National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) training.  Judge Doyle writing for Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals followed the exception to the clearly erroneous standard for motions to suppress know as "if there is video review is de novo rule" even in the face of the Trial disregarding police testimony as being unbelief worthy.  The Trial Court found in its order “the discrepancies between Officer Ferguson’s police report and the driver impairment form g[a]ve th[e trial] court doubt as to the propriety of [the] administration of [those
tests].”  Because there was a video and the driver impairment form and the police report were not in the appellate record, the Court appeals relied solely on the video of the arrest to review de novo the application of law to facts.

 As an aside, of course, a police report and driver impairment form are not admissible in evidence at a hearing or trial unless the Judge finds them trustworthy under Rule 803(c).  Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 170, 109 S.Ct. 439, 450, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988)("As long as the conclusion is based on a factual investigation and satisfies the Rule's trustworthiness requirement, it should be admissible along with other portions of the report.")

The State appealed the Court's suppression of walk and turn and one leg stand. The Court of Appeals agreed find testimony from an officer about a suspect’s inability to complete dexterity tests such as the walk and turn and one leg stand does not amount to testimony regarding scientific procedures, but instead amounts to testimony as to behavioral observations.  Therefore, unlike the scientific procedures such as the HGN and VGN are not inadmissible if not performed as trained but such evidence of poor test administration goes only to weight of the evidence and not to admissibility.

This would be fair if the State chooses to have the officer testify as a lay witness and describe the actions of the defendant in performing simple exercises such as the "leg lift" and "walk and turn" without referring to NHTSA training, any "points" system, clues or using the words "pass" or "fail"  or that the number of clues indicate "impairment."  The reality of the situation is that the police will refer to the evaluation as test, testify about there "expert" training and cloak them in the trappings of science to fool the jury even if they are only really just lay observations and evaluations. See generallyJames v. State, 260 Ga.App. 536, 539(1), 580 S.E.2d 334 (2003)

-Author: George Creal




    No legal advice should be obtained from the web site alone. George C. Creal, Jr., P.C. is Georgia Professional Corporation authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia only and all information contained in this web site is intended for use for DUI/DWIs occurring in the State of Georgia. Individuals with DUI/DWIs from outside the State of Georgia should contact a licensed attorney in the state of occurrence of their DUI. Copyright © 2015 George C. Creal, Jr. P.C.
    Protected by Copyscape Online Plagiarism Checker
    George C. Creal Jr.
    on Google+

    Atlanta Office: 480 John Wesley Dobbs Ave., NE, Unit 190, Atlanta, GA 30312 Phone: (404) 333-0706