As a seasoned DeKalb DUI lawyer with over 25 years of experience defending clients in DeKalb County and across Georgia, I've seen countless cases where field sobriety tests (FSTs) play a pivotal role in DUI arrests and prosecutions. The recent decision in The State v. Chambers (A25A1301), handed down by the Georgia Court of Appeals on September 30, 2025, offers some positive developments for DUI defense strategies—but it also raises serious concerns about how courts are handling officer testimony on these tests. In this blog post, I'll break down the case, explain its implications, and highlight why parts of the ruling are deeply troubling for ensuring fair trials in DUI matters.
Case Background: A DeKalb County DUI Arrest Gone Wrong
The facts of Chambers stem from a single-car accident on an Interstate 285 exit ramp in DeKalb County on May 3, 2023. Officer Saverion White and her partner responded to find Donald Chambers asleep behind the wheel of a Honda Odyssey that had collided with a guardrail. After significant effort to wake him—including a sternum rub—officers noted slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, an open half-empty can of malt liquor, and Chambers' confusion about the time (he thought it was midnight when it was actually 5:10 a.m.). Chambers admitted to drinking.
Officer White then administered three standard FSTs: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and the One-Leg Stand (OLS). A video of the tests was presented in court. White testified that Chambers showed "six of six clues" on the HGN, "six of the six clues" on the WAT (though the standard WAT has eight clues), and similarly poor performance on the OLS. Despite these observations, White admitted on cross-examination that she didn't "perform the tests perfectly." Critically, she failed to medically qualify Chambers beforehand—especially concerning given he'd just been in a crash—and omitted key instructions for the WAT, like walking in a straight line, keeping arms at his sides, or watching his feet.
Chambers moved to suppress the FST results, arguing they were improperly administered and unreliable. The trial court agreed, suppressing all three tests, even while finding probable cause for the arrest based on other evidence (e.g., the accident, open container, and admissions). The State appealed, leading to this appellate decision.
The Ruling: Affirming Suppression of HGN, But Reversing on WAT and OLS
The Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression of the HGN test but reversed on the WAT and OLS, allowing those into evidence. Here's why this split decision matters:
- HGN Test (Scientific and Subject to Daubert Scrutiny): The HGN, which checks for involuntary eye jerking as a sign of impairment, is considered a "scientific" test under Georgia law (OCGA § 24-7-702, incorporating the federal Daubert standard). The court held that Officer White's failure to medically clear Chambers post-accident rendered the test unreliable. This is a solid win for defense attorneys like me—we can continue challenging HGN results when officers skip crucial steps, ensuring only reliable scientific evidence reaches the jury.
- WAT and OLS Tests (Non-Scientific, Admissible Despite Flaws): In contrast, the court ruled that the WAT (walking heel-to-toe in a straight line) and OLS (balancing on one leg) are "non-scientific" dexterity exercises, observable by laypeople. Drawing from federal cases under Daubert, the Court of Appeals said these don't require expert qualification under Rule 702. Instead, they're treated as lay opinion under Rule 701. The trial court's attempt to exclude them under Rule 403 (unfair prejudice) was overruled, with the appellate court emphasizing that administration flaws go to the "weight" of the evidence (for the jury to decide), not its admissibility.
The court cited prior Georgia cases like Mitchell v. State (2017) and federal decisions such as United States v. Henderson (2015), reinforcing that these tests demonstrate basic dexterity and direction-following, not complex science, but the Henderson court limited testimony to lay observations. The Court held that the Police Officer could not testify as to “pass” or “fail” or clues in general, nor the standardized clues correlation to impairment or correct arrest decision. Even though the Officer botched instructions and medical checks, the results are admissible—juries can hear about Chambers' imbalance, extra steps, and failure to heel-to-toe.
Why This Case is Troubling: Blurring the Line Between Lay Opinion and Scientific Claims
While the partial reversal benefits the prosecution in Chambers, it exposes a deeper issue that's problematic for DUI defendants everywhere: the unchecked allowance of officer testimony on "clues" in non-scientific FSTs. Officers like White routinely testify that specific "clues" on the WAT (e.g., missing heel-to-toe, stepping off the line) or OLS (e.g., swaying, dropping the foot) correlate directly with impairment, blood alcohol concentration (BAC), or the "correctness" of the arrest decision. In Chambers, White claimed Chambers exhibited "six of six clues" on both tests, implying a high likelihood of intoxication.
But here's the rub—these "clues" aren't just common-sense observations. They're derived from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) field studies, which are scientific validations linking performance cues to impairment levels (e.g., NHTSA claims the WAT is 79% accurate in detecting BAC over 0.08% when two or more clues are present). Officers are trained on these studies, yet courts let them testify as if it's mere lay opinion, without Daubert's rigorous gatekeeping for reliability, methodology, or application.
This is troubling because:
- It's More Than Lay Evidence: A layperson might observe someone stumbling and think they're clumsy or tired, but an officer's testimony elevates it to a pseudo-scientific prediction of impairment. Without requiring officers to qualify as experts under Daubert, defendants can't fully cross-examine the underlying NHTSA data's flaws—like small sample sizes, lab vs. real-world discrepancies, or biases in validation studies.
- Risk of Unfair Prejudice: The appellate court dismissed Rule 403 concerns, but allowing flawed tests risks misleading juries. If an officer skips medical quals or instructions (as in Chambers), poor performance might stem from injury, nerves, or confusion—not alcohol. Yet juries hear "clues correlate with impairment" without context, tilting the scales toward conviction.
- Inconsistent Treatment of FSTs: Why treat HGN as scientific but WAT/OLS as not? All three are NHTSA-standardized, with "clues" based on the same research. This distinction lets prosecutors have it both ways: science when it helps, lay opinion when scrutiny might hurt.
In fact, the most recent field study, the San Diego study provides,
Driving a motor vehicle is a very complex activity that involves a wide variety of tasks and operator capabilities. It is unlikely that complex human performance, such as that required to safely drive an automobile, can be measured at roadside. The constraints imposed by roadside testing conditions were recognized by the developers of NHTSA' s SFST battery. As a consequence, they pursued the development of tests that would provide statistically valid and reliable indications of a driver's BAC, rather than indications of driving impairment. The link between BAC and driving impairment is a separate issue, involving entirely different research methods. Those methods have found driving to be impaired at BACs as low as 0.02 percent, with a sharp increase in impairment at about 0.07 percent (Moskowitz and Robirlson, 1988; Stuster, 1997). Thus, SFST results help officers to make accurate DWI arrest decisions even though SFSTs do not directly measure driving impairment.
In my practice, I've successfully used similar arguments to suppress or discredit FSTs in DeKalb County courts. This ruling underscores the need for aggressive challenges—filing Daubert motions on all FSTs, demanding NHTSA manual compliance, and educating juries and Judge’s on the tests' limitations and how these tests are actually treated in Federal Court where they are limited to naked observations with no pass/fail, clues or opinion of the ultimate issue of impairment..
Implications for DUI Defense in DeKalb County
For anyone facing DUI charges in DeKalb, Chambers is a reminder that not all FST evidence is ironclad. Defense strategies can include:
- Challenging Administration: Even for "non-scientific" tests, highlight deviations from NHTSA guidelines to attack credibility.
- Pushing for Daubert on Clues: Argue that testimony linking clues to impairment/BAC invokes science, requiring expert standards.
- Focusing on Totality: With or without FSTs, probable cause often hinges on other factors—fight those too.
If you're dealing with a DUI arrest involving FSTs, don't let flawed officer testimony seal your fate. As a DeKalb DUI lawyer, I've helped hundreds navigate these cases, often getting evidence suppressed or charges reduced.
Contact George Creal today for a free consultation. Visit our website www.georgecreal.com or call (404) 333-0706 to discuss how we can defend your rights based on the latest rulings like Chambers. Remember, knowledge is power—stay informed, and drive safe.