Skip to main content

False "Science": DWI Hyprocrisy


Where do I begin? Judges, jurors, district attorneys, cops, MADD? Let's start where it belongs: the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA). Back in 1977, the government gave NHTSA a grant to create some roadside tests for DWI arrests. Dr. Marcelline Burns, who holds a Ph.D in psychology was given carte blanche authority on this project. She came up with the field tests we know today. Her research was so bad (flunking on both the validity and reliability scales researchers measure tests against), that she reattempted her same research in 1981 with the same scientifically unacceptable results. This time she refused to release the validity data. Same story- when the feds lowered the legal limit from .10 to .08 she conducted three "studies" (San Diego, Colorado, and Florida) in an attempt to justify her tests to the lower legal limit. It was such a massive failure she refused to release the validity or reliability data. Federal judge Grimm in an exhaustive review of her data and current scientific peer review research held in U.S. v. Horn, 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Maryland 2002), that what law enforcement calls as the "standardized" field sobriety tests are unsuitable for use. Yet, law enforcement all across the country continue to use these substandard tests and imprison people on this basis. Throughout the years, although the tests have not changed (that is why they call them "standardized") NHTSA has removed critical limiting language. For example, the portion that warns that the "validity of the tests may be compromised" if the tests are not given in a standardized manner has been removed. In a brazen move, they have even now inserted a provision that these tests are not affected by varying environmental conditions. It does not take a Ph.D in psychology to know that ice, wind gales and wet, slippery surfaces will affect the tests despite their catchall disclaimer.

I am ashamed we have a federal agency that is so dishonest. I am ashamed that law enforcement does not reject research and tests that do not meet basic mathematical and scientific peer review standards. The fact we allow our fellow citizens to be arrested, convicted and have their lives ruined on this is unacceptable. This is reality. This is truth and this is wrong.



*I have a paper and powerpoint on this topic that has been published and presented nationally. I am happy to share upon request.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can A DWI Affect My Eligibility For Global Entry?

In general, all United States citizens and lawful permanent residents possess eligibility to apply for Global Entry. This is a program through Customs and Border Protection that allows for expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk travelers. That said, Customs my deny eligibility for a variety of reasons such as providing false information on the application and a finding of customs violation for *any* country (not just US Customs violations). However, there are 3 important reasons related to criminal defense that everyone should know. First, Customs may deny eligibility if you have been denied for the purchase of a firearm. This restriction is important because firearm restrictions may, on occasion, be a condition of a criminal charge, even if the charge is dismissed. Further, a denial of a firearm purchase may show Customs that you are not a “low-risk” traveler based on the reason for denial. Second, Customs may deny eligibility if you are the subject of an *ongoing investiga...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Biggest Misconception in a DWI

The biggest misconception in a DWI is to correlate a single bad driving behavior with guilt in a DWI. Whether it be a jerk (failure to maintain a single lane), accident (losing control and hitting something like a curb, pole, or another car), or stopping too long at a stop light, this may very well be evidence of driver inattention unrelated to intoxication. I have analyzed thousands of DWI cases and have tried over 300. What I typically find is a prosecutor who argues that the driving behavior which so often happens due to driver inattention be argued as clear evidence that a person is intoxicated. This is simply not fact. The facts are that every day drivers commit these violations due to distraction, inattention, fatigue or a host of other factors. Accidents are so common that the law mandates a driver operate a motor vehicle on our public roads with liability insurance. The mere fact that a driver commits these with alcohol or a substance (medication, drugs, caffeine, etc.) in ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Common Sense

Arthur Anderson goes down. Enron goes down. Big CEOs in jail. The nation woke up one day and said enough is enough. Don't tell us that just because you hire the best accounting firm you can create your own tax breaks by creating sham companies; just because the SEC in the past has winked at insider trading we are going to continue to allow the big CEOs to get rich because they know when to trade or sell (even going after small trades like the Martha Stewart case). Whether or not all those involved in the crackdown were deserving (in the Anderson case apparently one nose bleed CPA type brought the whole firm down due to bad ethics) I cannot say but what it obvious is that the press through the nation got the legislators and judges concerned and the rest is history. The same needs to happen for DWI. Bad ass lawyers have a job to do but we don't serve as the press. Some of the 1.4 million DWI arrestees (this statistic in contrast to NHTSAs approx. 17k alcohol related deaths) need ...
2 comments
Read more