SFST Court Testimony 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an SFST officer's opinion about a driver's impairment is typically admitted as:
- Hearsay evidence
- Lay opinion testimony based on personal observation (Correct answer)
- Expert testimony requiring separate qualification
- Circumstantial documentary evidence
Correct answer: Lay opinion testimony based on personal observation
Officers may offer lay opinion on observable signs of intoxication without being separately qualified as experts, though courts vary.
Question 2: Defense counsel challenges the Walk-and-Turn test by noting the suspect was wearing high heels. How should the officer respond?
- Deny the suspect was wearing heels
- Acknowledge the footwear, explain the NHTSA guideline to offer the suspect the option to remove them, and state whether that was done (Correct answer)
- Argue that heels do not affect the test
- Blame the suspect for not removing footwear
Correct answer: Acknowledge the footwear, explain the NHTSA guideline to offer the suspect the option to remove them, and state whether that was done
NHTSA protocol addresses inappropriate footwear; documenting whether the option to remove shoes was offered demonstrates proper administration.
Question 3: An officer testifies they detected a strong odor of alcohol from the driver. Defense counters that odor alone proves nothing. The officer's best supplemental testimony is:
- Agree that odor is irrelevant
- Explain that odor was one of multiple indicators observed, including slurred speech and bloodshot eyes (Correct answer)
- State that odor always means impairment
- Withdraw mention of odor from testimony
Correct answer: Explain that odor was one of multiple indicators observed, including slurred speech and bloodshot eyes
Odor is a component of the totality of observations; presenting it alongside other indicators reinforces a holistic impairment picture.
Question 4: What does 'chain of custody' mean in the context of SFST-related evidence such as a breath test printout?
- The order in which suspects are arrested
- The documented sequence of possession ensuring evidence integrity from collection to court (Correct answer)
- The officer's chain of command
- The sequence of tests administered
Correct answer: The documented sequence of possession ensuring evidence integrity from collection to court
Chain of custody documents who handled evidence and when, establishing that it was not tampered with before presentation in court.
Question 5: During testimony, the defense produces a video of the field sobriety tests. The officer should:
- Object to any video evidence
- Welcome the video and use it to reinforce or clarify observations already documented in the report (Correct answer)
- Claim the video is inauthentic without reviewing it
- Refuse to watch the video in court
Correct answer: Welcome the video and use it to reinforce or clarify observations already documented in the report
Officers should review video evidence and use it as an opportunity to correlate recorded observations with their written documentation.
Question 6: What is the significance of testifying that SFST clues indicate a probability — not certainty — of impairment?
- It weakens the prosecution's case
- It accurately reflects the validated research basis and protects the officer from overstatement (Correct answer)
- It means the officer doubts the arrest decision
- It is legally prohibited to use probabilistic language in court
Correct answer: It accurately reflects the validated research basis and protects the officer from overstatement
NHTSA research presents SFSTs as indicators with validated accuracy rates, so probabilistic testimony is scientifically accurate and more credible.
Question 7: An officer is asked if they have ever arrested someone for DUI who later proved sober. The officer should:
- Deny any such occurrence
- Acknowledge that errors can occur and explain the safeguards in place to minimize them (Correct answer)
- Refuse to answer on grounds of self-incrimination
- Change the subject
Correct answer: Acknowledge that errors can occur and explain the safeguards in place to minimize them
Acknowledging fallibility while explaining procedural safeguards demonstrates integrity and is more persuasive to juries than claiming infallibility.
SFST Court Testimony 3
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an SFST officer's opinion about a driver's impairment is typically admitted as: