SFST Legal and Ethical Considerations 4

Question 1

The exclusionary rule, as it applies to illegally obtained SFST evidence, was established primarily by:

Accepted Answer

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) applied the exclusionary rule to state prosecutions, barring illegally obtained evidence.

Question 2

In Berkemer v. McCarty, the Supreme Court held that roadside DUI questioning:

Accepted Answer

Is non-custodial and does not require Miranda warnings

Answer

Berkemer v. McCarty held that ordinary traffic stops are not custodial, so Miranda warnings are not required.

Question 3

An officer administers SFSTs after arresting a suspect without first observing driving behavior. This may violate:

Accepted Answer

The foundational reasonable suspicion requirement

Answer

SFSTs require prior reasonable articulable suspicion from observed conduct before a lawful stop and investigation.

Question 4

An SFST-certified officer testifying as an expert witness has a primary duty of truthfulness to:

Accepted Answer

The court and justice system

Answer

Expert witnesses owe their primary duty of truthfulness to the court, not to the party that calls them.

Question 5

Implied consent laws typically require that a driver who refuses a chemical test following a failed SFST faces:

Accepted Answer

Administrative license suspension

Answer

Implied consent laws impose administrative license suspension as a civil penalty for chemical test refusal.

(SFST) Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Certified Practice Test