indylaw: Then why even bother with Officer Piggerson getting up on the stand and saying that he is an expert on watching dudes' eyes and that the twitch in the defendant's eye is a sign that he was drunk (in almost but not quite 3 out of 4 cases)?

Because it's an indicator used to determine further testing is necessary. Again, it is not used by itsself to convict someone of DUI, like you claimed several posts above this. In Shelby County, for example, it's an indicator used along with gait disturbance and mental exams which gets a "Whiskey" officer to respond to the scene, who has the ability to perform field biomarkers and blow tests. They are the ones that determine intoxication and transport the individual to jail. Not just based on the H/VGN tests.

And it's an indicator, that according to scientific evidence with disagrees with your anecdote, has an above-average level of specificity and sensitivity. You can argue you dislike it all you want, however, you cannot argue with scientific evidence that says it's a valid test when used with other physical exam findings and the use of biomarker lab draws or oral breathylizer exams.

indylaw: Just submit the BAC results that show that the driver was between .23 and .24. It's accurate, reasonably precise, and doesn't depend on the "opinion" and "expertise" of some dude that wants to make an arrest to meet a quota.

You do realize that's what they do, right? This is why I hate arguing with lawyers: Circular Logic.

indylaw: As for Daubert, lots of stupid bullshiat gets through Daubert. You can find scientists who believe all sorts of crazy things that aren't generally accepted. Fortunately in Florida the Frye test still governs.

Looking for H/VGN is part of the cranial nerve examination utilized by any level of healthcare professional above that of a basic first aid provider when performing a secondary assessment. It's an indicator of metabolic disturbance, cranial nerve dysfunction, or other form of altered mentation - such as a seizure. (nystagmus and deviation is a symptom of seizure, expecially parital/complex and pediatric/infantile grand mal). In addition, it meets the Frye test as well by not being an "experimental, not well accepted" procedure.

BronyMedic: indylaw: Then why even bother with Officer Piggerson getting up on the stand and saying that he is an expert on watching dudes' eyes and that the twitch in the defendant's eye is a sign that he was drunk (in almost but not quite 3 out of 4 cases)?

Because it's an indicator used to determine further testing is necessary. Again, it is not used by itsself to convict someone of DUI, like you claimed several posts above this. In Shelby County, for example, it's an indicator used along with gait disturbance and mental exams which gets a "Whiskey" officer to respond to the scene, who has the ability to perform field biomarkers and blow tests. They are the ones that determine intoxication and transport the individual to jail. Not just based on the H/VGN tests.

And it's an indicator, that according to scientific evidence with disagrees with your anecdote, has an above-average level of specificity and sensitivity. You can argue you dislike it all you want, however, you cannot argue with scientific evidence that says it's a valid test when used with other physical exam findings and the use of biomarker lab draws or oral breathylizer exams.

indylaw: Just submit the BAC results that show that the driver was between .23 and .24. It's accurate, reasonably precise, and doesn't depend on the "opinion" and "expertise" of some dude that wants to make an arrest to meet a quota.

You do realize that's what they do, right? This is why I hate arguing with lawyers: Circular Logic.

indylaw: As for Daubert, lots of stupid bullshiat gets through Daubert. You can find scientists who believe all sorts of crazy things that aren't generally accepted. Fortunately in Florida the Frye test still governs.

Looking for H/VGN is part of the cranial nerve examination utilized by any level of healthcare professional above that of a basic first aid provider when performing a secondary assessment. It's an indicator of metabolic disturbance, cranial nerve dysfunction, or other form of altered mentation ...

And if HGN tests were used merely to establish probable cause, I'd be OK with that. 74% is accurate enough to warrant further investigation.

But prosecutors want to be able to use HGN observations as scientific opinion testimony at trial in order to secure a conviction for DUI. Maybe the defense has demonstrated that the breathalyzer was not properly tested or calibrated and got the results thrown out. The prosecutor then wants to get a police officer on the stand to say "Oh, trust me, he was wasted, because I saw his eyeballs twitch while he was following a pen in my hand." It's just not reliable enough, and having a police officer give self-serving testimony like that on a topic in which he is marginally trained is prejudicial, at least IMO. That's what I'm getting at.

I've never understood the point of field sobriety tests. The two or three times they've set up roadblocks near the Florabama or whatnot and tested everyone leaving, I've always asked to cut to the chase and do the breathlyzer right off the bat.

They always seemed so...disappointed by the breathlyzer test results.

"Ok.... .01.... .01.... .02 it's .02... .02.... .02.... crap. That's it. "

indylaw: And if HGN tests were used merely to establish probable cause, I'd be OK with that. 74% is accurate enough to warrant further investigation

And I can agree with that. That's what the TBI recommends, and that's how the jursdiction I volunteer medical with uses it.

indylaw: But prosecutors want to be able to use HGN observations as scientific opinion testimony at trial in order to secure a conviction for DUI. Maybe the defense has demonstrated that the breathalyzer was not properly tested or calibrated and got the results thrown out. The prosecutor then wants to get a police officer on the stand to say "Oh, trust me, he was wasted, because I saw his eyeballs twitch while he was following a pen in my hand." It's just not reliable enough, and having a police officer give self-serving testimony like that on a topic in which he is marginally trained is prejudicial, at least IMO. That's what I'm getting at.

phoenixwrightOBJECTION.jpg

Why didn't you just say that at the beginning, indy? It would have been a much shorter conversation, as it would have consisted of "I agree." It would have saved me a lot of PubMed browsing.

BronyMedic: indylaw: And if HGN tests were used merely to establish probable cause, I'd be OK with that. 74% is accurate enough to warrant further investigation

And I can agree with that. That's what the TBI recommends, and that's how the jursdiction I volunteer medical with uses it.

indylaw: But prosecutors want to be able to use HGN observations as scientific opinion testimony at trial in order to secure a conviction for DUI. Maybe the defense has demonstrated that the breathalyzer was not properly tested or calibrated and got the results thrown out. The prosecutor then wants to get a police officer on the stand to say "Oh, trust me, he was wasted, because I saw his eyeballs twitch while he was following a pen in my hand." It's just not reliable enough, and having a police officer give self-serving testimony like that on a topic in which he is marginally trained is prejudicial, at least IMO. That's what I'm getting at.

phoenixwrightOBJECTION.jpg

Why didn't you just say that at the beginning, indy? It would have been a much shorter conversation, as it would have consisted of "I agree." It would have saved me a lot of PubMed browsing.

You should thank me for keeping your skills sharp. Plus, I'm a lawyer and a bit of a dick. I likes to argue. :-D

UnspokenVoice: brantgoose: Diabetics often sound and act like they are drunk when they go into insulin shock. It is important that the general public and public officials, including the police, be aware of this and other causes of misunderstanding and uninformed reactions.

This sort of thing happens all the time--people think a diabetic who is having an episode is drunk. It's understandable but preventable.

There's also a tragic amount of ignorance an misinformation about mental illness, epilepsy, autism, disabilities, etc.

Educate yourself on the symptoms and treatment of common afflictions such as stroke, diabetes, epilepsy, shock, etc. It may save a life or a misunderstanding.

Let each of these odd stories be a teaching moment and Fark.com can make the world a better, safer, less funny place.

Screw that. If there is one thing we have a surplus of, it is humans. I think the more tragedy the better, the added bonus is that it truly is quite funny. Trust me on this one, we have plenty of humans. We're adept at making more.

Since you are so fond of this idea, please report immediately to the trauma center to recieve your tragedy...

BronyMedic: The number of fatal work injuries among protective service occupations increased by 6 percent in
2010 after two years of declines. The increase was led by fatalities among police officers which rose
40 percent from 96 to 134 in 2010. Of the 134 fatal work injuries among police officers, 57
involved highway incidents and 48 involved homicides. Most other subgroups in the protective
service occupational group declined in 2010.

Right there in text-57 deaths from highway accidents, 48 from homicides. This is about the same split every year where more cops are killed in car crashes then shootings. Yet, we hear the same larger number (134) in any discussion about danger to police from shootings. Driving around as a cop is more dangerous than interacting with people as a cop.