State v. Meador

Citation674 So.2d 826
Decision Date15 May 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-0584,95-0584
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly D1152 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Lowndes MEADOR, Jr., and Jory Walsh, Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Alan T. Lipson and Carlos A. Canet of Essen, Essen, Susaneck, Canet & Lipson, P.A., North Miami Beach, for Appellee-William Lowndes Meador, Jr.

Mark S. Gold of Gold and Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee-Jory Walsh.

George M. Thomas of Law Offices of George M. Thomas, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Amicus Curiae-Mothers Against Drunk Driving Florida.

Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender, and Diane M. Cuddihy, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee-Vincent Antonelli in related Case No. 95-2099.

PARIENTE, Judge.

In connection with prosecutions for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, the state appeals a pretrial order of a county court excluding evidence of the results of a series of exercises commonly referred to as field sobriety tests. The county court's decision to exclude the evidence was made after an evidentiary hearing during which two expert witnesses testified regarding the scientific validity and reliability of the field sobriety tests in predicting impairment. The county court certified two questions as being of great public importance: (1) are field sobriety exercises sufficiently reliable to be probative under F.S. 90.401 in proving impairment of one's normal faculties in the prosecution of a DUI offense; and (2) if answered in the affirmative, then does the likelihood of any unfair prejudice require their exclusion in those prosecutions under F.S. 90.402 and 90.403? 1

We exercise our discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4)(A) because of the disparate approaches and conclusions of the county court judges concerning the admissibility of field sobriety test evidence in DUI prosecutions within this district. We, however, rephrase the certified questions, as follows:

(1) ARE LAY OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING A DEFENDANT'S PERFORMANCE OF FIELD SOBRIETY

TESTS RELEVANT UNDER SECTION 90.401, FLORIDA STATUTES, IN PROVING IMPAIRMENT OF ONE'S NORMAL FACULTIES IN THE PROSECUTION OF A DUI OFFENSE?

(2) IF ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE TESTIMONY ON FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE DANGER OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE, CONFUSION OF ISSUES, OR MISLEADING THE JURY SO AS TO REQUIRE EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY IN DUI PROSECUTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 90.402 AND 90.403, FLORIDA STATUTES?

We answer these questions by distinguishing between: (1) psychomotor field sobriety tests, in which the defendants are requested to perform certain tasks; and (2) the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, which is scientific evidence of a physiological phenomenon associated with intoxication.

As to the psychomotor field sobriety tests, we answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative. We reject a per se rule of exclusion, provided that the test results are not characterized in a manner which unduly emphasizes the significance of the test results.

As to the HGN test, which we consider to be scientific evidence, we answer both questions in the affirmative, finding HGN testing to be relevant, but that the relevance is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading the jury unless the traditional predicates of scientific evidence are satisfied.

INTRODUCTION

Both defendants challenged the admissibility of field sobriety tests in connection with their arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol pursuant to section 316.193(1), Florida Statutes (1991). Defendant Meador was arrested by the Coral Springs Police Department and defendant Walsh by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Both defendants complied with the officers' requests to submit to certain physical exercises. The physical exercises included the walk-and-turn test, one-legged stand, balance test, and finger-to-nose test, which are all part of the field sobriety tests. 2 Additionally, the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test was administered to defendant Walsh. Both defendants sought to exclude evidence of the field sobriety tests on the grounds that the testing lacked both scientific reliability and probative value, and was otherwise highly prejudicial. 3

EXPERT TESTIMONY

The only record we have to evaluate the issues presented to us consists of the testimony of the two experts who testified before the county court, one for the state and one for defendants. 4 Each expert testified about the reliability of field sobriety tests in predicting impairment in general and not about the specifics of this case. We have not been provided with any medical or scientific literature in the record nor do we have evidence of the protocol followed by the officers for administering the battery of field sobriety tests on Meador or Walsh.

The focus of both experts' testimony was the 1977 and 1981 National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) research projects funded to study field sobriety tests. Because of the difficulties in numerically estimating impairment The defense presented the testimony of Dr. Spurgeon Cole, a clinical psychologist and professor at Clemson University. He teaches psychological testing measurement and has administered and evaluated psychological testing. Dr. Cole is a veteran of DUI cases, having testified in numerous other cases as an expert on field sobriety testing. 6

the studies evaluated whether the field sobriety tests could be used to accurately predict whether a subject was above or below a .10% blood alcohol content (BAC), the presumptive level of intoxication in California at the time of the studies. 5

The state presented the testimony of Dr. Marcelline Burns, a clinical psychologist employed by the Southern California Research Institute, who has likewise testified in Florida as well as in other states on the subject of field sobriety tests. 7 Dr. Burns was one of the supervisors of the 1977 and 1981 NHTSA studies and assumed a significant role in developing the two reports generated by the research.

Both Dr. Burns and Dr. Cole provided testimony on the use of analytical equations to determine consistency coefficients; that is, numerical values attached to the reliability of the field sobriety tests being measured. The coefficients of correlations are normally expressed within a range of .0 to 1, with .0 representing no reliability and 1 representing complete reliability; that is, a test that will give a perfectly consistent result each time it is used.

Dr. Cole analyzed the NHTSA studies on field sobriety tests from a scientific viewpoint: validity (the ability to predict a particular criterion such as breath alcohol content) and reliability (consistency in scoring with successive testing). He acknowledged that the NHTSA studies were based on sound scientific principles, that the studies were properly conducted, and that he did not dispute any of the results achieved in the NHTSA studies. In Dr. Cole's opinion, however, the consistency coefficients realized in the various tests were not of a sufficient value to allow for a finding that the field sobriety tests had scientific validity.

Dr. Cole testified that the percentage of "false positives" or false arrests in both studies were intolerably high. He further criticized the field sobriety tests generally because none of the field sobriety tests called for an individual to perform any "normal" functions. Therefore, he found that the tests were of little value in determining if a person is under the influence to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired. However, he acknowledged that he was unaware of any field sobriety exercises which could accurately predict impairment of normal faculties.

Dr. Cole admitted that there is a relationship between field sobriety test performance and impairment, but maintained that it was extremely difficult to quantify the values for scientific analysis. This is because impairment, unlike blood alcohol levels, cannot be numerically quantified. He further acknowledged that field sobriety tests can assist law enforcement officials in making a roadside probable cause determination with respect to the crime of driving under the influence.

Dr. Burns explained that the purpose of the 1977 NHTSA study was to identify the best field sobriety tests that an officer could use at roadside and not to measure reliability. She also explained that the study used more people with low or no BAC's in order to avoid bias on the part of the officers. She attributed the high error rate to the fact that these officers had no experience with the tests.

As a result of the 1977 study, a three-test battery was recommended: the walk-and-turn, the one-legged stand and the HGN test. The other tests were discarded because they were cumulative and took more time, not because they were not alcohol sensitive. The statistics for the 1981 study revealed that the officers were correct in their determination of whether or not to arrest 81% of the time. The reliability coefficient for the three-test battery was .77, which Dr. Burns stated was slightly above an acceptable coefficient for this type of test. Dr. Burns admitted, however, that the findings reported in her 1977 and 1981 studies were less than conclusive and that she had recommended that a subsequent nationwide field study be conducted over a period of 18 months. When the 1983 study was conducted, it was over only a three-month period and involved only four police agencies.

After hearing this evidence, county court Judge Zebedee Wright found that there were too many factors affecting the reliability of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1998
    ...signs and conditions are not classified as "scientific" and thus constitute admissible testimony. For example, in State v. Meador, 674 So.2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 686 So.2d 580 (Fla.1996), the court held that a police officer was allowed to testify about the defendant's perform......
  • Hulse v. State, Dept. of Justice, Motor Vehicle Div.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1997
    ...Similarly, a Florida appellate court declared that HGN testing was neither a novel nor a new scientific technique. State v. Meador (Fla.App. 4 Dist.1996), 674 So.2d 826, 835. See also State v. O'Key (1995), 321 Or. 285, 899 P.2d 663, 684 (noting HGN test used for three ¶69 We agree that the......
  • State Of Kan. v. Shadden
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 9, 2010
    ...points.” Second, he sought to limit the officers' testimony to lay opinions. Shadden supported these requests by citing State v. Meador, 674 So.2d 826 (Fla.Dist.App.1996), rev. denied 686 So.2d 580 (Fla.1996). Meador supported Shadden's second request to limit testimony to lay opinions beca......
  • Lee v. Martinez
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • July 14, 2004
    ... ... In each case the State has opposed the admission of such polygraph evidence on the ground that it fails to satisfy the standard for the admissibility of expert testimony ... Meador, 674 So.2d 826, 834 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) ) ...         {15} The purpose of Rule 11-702 is "to assist the trier of fact to understand ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Navigating expert reliability: are criminal standards of certainty being left on the dock?
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 64 No. 1, September 2000
    • September 22, 2000
    ...affirming the defendant's conviction since admitting the results of defendant's HGN test was harmless error); State v. Meador, 674 So. 2d 826, 836 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (concluding that since "HGN testing constitutes scientific evidence" it must meet the "traditional predicates" prior ......
  • Pre-trial discovery and motion practice
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Innovative DUI Trial Tools
    • May 1, 2021
    ...performance on so-called standardized field sobriety tests and that subject’s ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. State v. Meador , 674 So. 2d 826, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1152 (May 15, 1996) 33. Any attempt by the prosecutor to “load up” during rebuttal argument by arguing matters not rais......
  • Dui defense
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Small-Firm Practice Tools - Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • April 1, 2023
    ...eye movement. It is an involuntary rapid oscillation of the eyeballs in a horizontal, vertical, or rotary direction. [ State v. Meador , 674 So. 2d 826, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).] Use of alcohol is only one possible cause of nystagmus. For example, nystagmus also can be caused by psychologic......
  • The offense
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Defending Drinking Drivers - Volume One
    • March 31, 2022
    ...courts have found the HGN test to be scientific, but determined that it “passed” Frye admissibility requirements. See State v. Meador , 674 So. 2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1996), rev. denied 686 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1996); State v. O’Key , 899 P.2d 663 (Or. 1995). The Williams court d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT