I was recently told by my mother's homecare aid, whose friend is a city policeman, that no one should ever submit to a voluntary field sobriety test if they didn't want to be arrested for driving while intoxicated. She was told by her friend that nobody can pass these tests, even if the person has never drank any form of alcohol; for it is up to the officer whether he or she feels that that person is intoxicated or not. It is his or her word that determines one's guilt. Since I was a little reluctant to accept this breaking news, I did a Google search and found some startling things.  Unless a person has had firsthand experience at the hands of an upstanding law enforcement agent arresting them for DWI/DUI, when in fact they were innocent, most all of us would not hesitate to stare into a bright light and watch the long finger of the law traverse back and forth before our eyes. Although embarrassing, we would want to prove our innocence, wouldn't we?  Well, according to what I found, that would be the very thing that would "prove" your "guilt."   Read and consider what you might do if you ever happen to fall into the hands of a polite officer who wants to give you a field sobriety test (E.R.):

--------------------------

Have You Been Drinking? By Danny Freisner, Attorney and Counselor at Law
Published in Living Magazine September-October 2006 Edition

Picture this.... mandatory

Your day started at 5:00AM this morning, so that you could finish that important project at work. And hey, you did it…congratulations on a job well done! But wait, your schedule still shows that you have a dinner meeting with a potential client at 7:30PM, so you head for the restaurant. You talk business and enjoy a glass of white wine with your meal. As the waiter starts to fill your water glass, he knocks your wine glass into your lap, which was half-full. The waiter quickly gets you another glass of wine and a towel. You’re not happy, but at least it was white wine. Your meeting ends around 10:00PM, and you get into your car heading towards home. You are exhausted from a full day.

Suddenly, your cell phone rings and you start fumbling around for it in your pocket (or purse). While you’re trying to fish out the phone, you swerve into the next lane a couple of times, and then a flash in your rearview mirror catches your eye. It’s a police officer pulling you over. As he walks up to the car, he notices your eyes are red and says he smells a strong odor of alcohol. He then asks if you have been drinking and to please step out of your car. You’re not drunk, so you have nothing to worry about…right? You try explaining what happened. As you are talking the officer is looking for signs of "intoxication," which are often things people just do sometimes (i.e. have a hard time getting a driver’s license out of your wallet). The officer asks you to take a few tests after giving you a quick set of instructions. You want to seem agreeable, so you say you understand what you are supposed to do. Afterward doing some field tests, the officer says he believes you are intoxicated, and places you under arrest while you watch your car being towed.

What? No problem, because the officer tells you that when you get to the jail you’ll be offered a breath test to prove you’re not intoxicated. You take the breath test, and you are told you are under arrest for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). Did you pass the breath test? Well, you might have passed the breath test and still you are arrested for DWI.

Don’t think it could happen to you? Think again! The scene described above happens in various forms everyday across Texas. I am not saying all DWI arrests are bogus, but I am saying that based under our current system it is possible for a person to be charged with a DWI despite not being intoxicated, even after the person passed the breath test taken at the jail.

So, how did you pass the breath test and still find yourself arrested for DWI?

Well, the officer probably did not tell you that he can arrest you for one of two reasons. The first would be if you blew above the legal limit. The second is if, in his opinion, you did not have the normal use of your mental or physical faculties by introduction of alcohol into your body while you were driving. Notice what I said, "in his opinion."

In Texas, a first time DWI conviction carries up to six (6) months in jail and a maximum fine of $2,000.00 dollars. In addition, you face two driver’s license suspensions. The first is an administrative suspension and the second is upon a conviction for DWI. In addition to the above, you will pay $3,000.00 dollars in Department of Public Safety "surcharges" if convicted. You also will have attorney fees, bond fees, and court costs.

Okay, so what is a person to do?

The answer is not always easy. First, as I suggest on my website at www.txcriminaldefense.com always be polite to the officer. Second, remember everything you say, and do, is most likely being filmed. Third, you are going to have to make a tough decision…do you take the tests or respectfully refuse all or part of the tests you are offered? Although the officer might let you go if you pass the field sobriety test, you still run the risk of being arrested for DWI.

Is it true that you may lose your license if you don’t take the breath test?

Yes, but you are going to risk losing your license anyway if the officer believes you did not have control of your mental or physical faculties by reason of alcohol or the breath test results come back above the limit, plus you have just given evidence that will be used against you.

If you refuse to take the breath test then you can still request a hearing be held on the administrative driver’s license suspension within 15 days from the date of suspension. If you fail to request the hearing then your license is automatically suspended. You also maintain all your constitutional rights to a jury trial. If you are arrested for DWI then you have nothing to lose by requesting the administrative hearing and valuable insight into the case is often gained. Plus, you just might win the hearing and keep your driver’s license.

Danny Freisner is an attorney practicing criminal defense throughout the State of Texas with his principle office located in downtown Waxahachie, Texas. He is a member of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, the Ellis County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and has a broad range of education beyond law school, including the "Top Gun DWI" seminar held by TCDLA. You can reach him at (972) 923-1899.

Danny Freisner
Attorney at Law
(972) 923-1899
www.txcriminaldefense.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York Field Sobriety Tests

Drivers suspected of DUI / DWI are routinely asked by police officers to perform one or more field sobriety tests. These voluntary "tests" (yes, voluntary) were developed by police agencies to assist law enforcement officers in making roadside determinations as to whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Through the performance of these tests or evaluations, the police officer subjectively determines how the motorist reacts to and performs the requested tasks.

Almost EVERY knowledgeable DUI / DWI attorney will say to you, "NO. Don’t attempt ANY ‘field tests’---EVER." That is because many studies have concluded that the SFSTs are "designed to fail".

A driver's alleged poor performance on field evaluations may provide the "probable cause" (legal justification) an officer needs to arrest a person for impaired driving and may also become part of the proof used to later convict the person at trial. Therefore, it is very important that, in defending you, your defense attorney know as much or more about these tests as the police.

One sure way to know that your DUI lawyer is up to date: is your lawyer "NHTSA certified"? Certified as a "student"? Or certified as an "instructor". Ask him/her. This training has been available to defense attorneys since 1994.

Starting in the 1970’s, NHTSA began studying and funding "field tests" to see if any of the dozens of police exercises had any correlation to showing if a drinking driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.10 grams percent or higher. The "studies" determined that only the three named evaluations had any reliable correlation better than 50-50 (flipping a coin and guessing ‘heads’, being a 50-50 reliability test, for example) to identify a person having a BAC of 0.10% or more. These evaluations in no way were used to determine whether a driver is impaired . . . only whether the person may be 0.10 or more.

The HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) evaluation, when performed correctly on proper subjects, had a 77% "claimed" reliability rating. The WAT exercise, when conducted properly on a qualified subject on a dry, level surface, was found to be 68% reliable. The OLS exercise, when conducted properly, on a qualified subject on a level, dry surface and under proper instructions and where correctly demonstrated and scored, reportedly yields about 65% reliability. Cumulatively, if all are done correctly, up to 83% correlation to a BAC of 0.10% or more may be expected.

Knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers know that 98% or more of the officers administering these evaluations do them wrong, or conduct them in a manner (or on a test subject) not approved by the SFST manual, or grade the evaluations improperly, as per the manual, or ALL OF THE ABOVE. When done incorrectly, these evaluations have ZERO predicted reliability. Hence, a top-notch DUI/DWI lawyer can cross-examine the arresting officer using his/her OWN training materials that the federal government and YOUR state government have approved.

Recent research and scientific review of the testing protocols and scoring methodology have brought the NHTSA "Standardized Field Sobriety Tests ("SFSTs") into serious question. Courts across America are taking a closer look at the original research, to see if proper scientific methods were employed in the initial research. More and more courts are now saying "no" to these questions. In a recent New Mexico case, a high-level court has declared that the person who "developed" the tests (Dr. Marcelline Burns) was not qualified to testify as an expert witness about the scientific principles behind the HGN test. (Lasworth v. State, 42 P.2d 844 (N.M. App. 2001).)

http://www.anellilaw.com/new-york-field-sobriety-test.html

------------------------------------

GENERALLY

Motorists suspected of DUI / DWI are routinely asked by police officers to perform one or more field sobriety exercises. These voluntary "tests" (yes, voluntary) were developed by police agencies to assist law enforcement officers in making roadside determinations as to whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Through the performance of these tests or evaluations, the officer subjectively determines how the motorist reacts to and performs the requested tasks.

Almost EVERY knowledgeable DUI / DWI attorney will say to you, "NO. Don’t attempt ANY ‘field tests’---EVER." That is because many studies have concluded that the SFSTs are "designed to fail".

A motorist's alleged poor performance on field evaluations may provide the "probable cause" (legal justification) an officer needs to arrest a person for impaired driving and may also become part of the proof used to later convict the person at trial. See Parrish v. State, 216 Ga. App. 832, 456 S.E.2d 283 (1995). Therefore, it is very important that, in defending you, your defense attorney know as much or more about these tests as the police, if he or she is going to defend you.

One sure way to know that your attorney is up to date: is your lawyer "NHTSA certified"? Certified as a "student"? Or certified as an "instructor". Ask him/her. This training has been available to defense attorneys since 1994, and over 1000 attorneys nationwide have received the training. Mr. Head is an SFST instructor, and has taught or helped teach these evaluations to over 300 other defense lawyers.

Counsel for the defense should challenge the subjective nature of the evaluations, the accuracy of the principles behind the tests, the accuracy of the administration of the tests, the credibility of the officer who "requested" the tests, and challenge all circumstances connected with the evaluations. The attorney representing you must attack the factual and legal issues that may arise regarding the officer's scoring and evaluation of the field tests.

Only three tests have been "scientifically" studied (in lengthy studies paid for by the federal government) and represented to have any measure of reliability in helping an officer predict whether a subject is above a certain legal limit (0.10 BAC, in the original testing). These tests, known as the "standardized field sobriety tests" [SFSTs], were designed pursuant to numerous federal grants and ultimately sanctioned by NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration) beginning in 1984. These three tests are (1) the walk and turn [WAT] test, (2) the one leg stand [OLS] test, and (3) the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test. However, the manuals (plural here, because 6 separate versions have now been released) say that if not performed properly, or if conducted without adhering to the training protocols, such actions "compromise" the validity of these evaluations.

Starting in the 1970’s, NHTSA began studying and funding "field tests" to see if any of the dozens of police exercises had any correlation to showing if a drinking driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.10 grams percent or higher. The "studies" determined that only the three named evaluations had any reliable correlation better than 50-50 (flipping a coin and guessing ‘heads’, being a 50-50 reliability test, for example) to identify a person having a BAC of 0.10% or more. These evaluations in no way were used to determine whether a driver is impaired . . . only whether the person may be 0.10 or more.

The HGN evaluation, when performed correctly on proper subjects, had a 77% "claimed" reliability rating. The WAT exercise, when conducted properly on a qualified subject on a dry, level surface, was found to be 68% reliable. The OLS exercise, when conducted properly, on a qualified subject on a level, dry surface and under proper instructions and where correctly demonstrated and scored, reportedly yields about 65% reliability. Cumulatively, if all are done correctly, up to 83% correlation to a BAC of 0.10% or more may be expected.

Knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers know that 98% or more of the officers administering these evaluations do them wrong, or conduct them in a manner (or on a test subject) not approved by the SFST manual, or grade the evaluations improperly, as per the manual, or ALL OF THE ABOVE. When done incorrectly, these evaluations have ZERO predicted reliability. Hence, a top-notch DUI/DWI lawyer can cross-examine the arresting officer using his/her OWN training materials that the federal government and YOUR state government have approved.

Recent research and scientific review of the testing protocols and scoring methodology have brought the NHTSA "Standardized Field Sobriety Tests ("SFSTs") into serious question. Courts across America are taking a closer look at the original research, to see if proper scientific methods were employed in the initial research. More and more courts are now saying "no" to these questions. In a recent New Mexico case, a high-level court has declared that the person who "developed" the tests (Dr. Marcelline Burns) was not qualified to testify as an expert witness about the scientific principles behind the HGN test. (Lasworth v. State, 42 P.2d 844 (N.M. App. 2001).)

HISTORIC ROOTS

Prior to the 1980's and NHTSA's studies on field testing, police officers across America were taught a wide variety of "tests" to be given to persons stopped for suspected drunk driving. Most of these "tests" had never been studied to determine "fairness" or accuracy in detecting either impaired drivers or drivers who were operating a vehicle while their BAC level was 0.10 BAC or more. Moreover, no standardized method (that is, not being done the same way by officers who used these tests) of scoring or grading these tests had been attempted. Simply stated, the decision to arrest was based upon the subjective whim of the officer. Mistakes were made in a large percentage of cases.

Tests given by some officers may have included reciting the alphabet (or a portion thereof), picking up coins off the ground, or touching index fingers to the tip of the nose while the person’s eyes were closed and head tilted back. Some involved strange, one-legged tapping on the roadway with a raised foot (similar to what that famous television horse, Mr. Ed, used to do). These "made-up" tests were administered to subjects without any scientific or empirical basis for reliability in detecting an impaired driver. These tests were designed for failure, not for fairness. Even worse, police officers often forced people to perform these voluntary evaluations, thereby violating these citizens’ rights.

Some "non-standardized" tests were so ridiculous and difficult that proof of non-validity was easy with almost any jury or judge. Today, officers who lack NHTSA training invariably cannot cite any studies or scientific research which "validated" their tests, the scoring (e.g., "pass" or "fail") or their testing methods. Almost always, no scoring system is used on tests which do not adhere to NHTSA guidelines. If non-standardized tests are used, the number of errors that are required for a subject to fail is totally subjective with each officer. Hence, the untrained officer is usually an easy target for a skilled and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who knows the "limitations" of these field tests.

THE ISSUE OF THE ``SCIENCE'' OF FIELD TESTING

A great rift exists among scientific experts on the question of whether field sobriety tests are ``scientific.'' For example, Georgia's appellate courts have blown hot and cold on this subject. Torrance v. State, 217 Ga. App. 562, 458 S.E.2d 495 (1995); Manley v. State, 206 Ga. App. 281, 424 S.E.2d 818 (1992); Foster v. State, 204 Ga. App. 632, 420 S.E.2d 78 (1992); Crawford v. City of Forest Park, 215 Ga. App. 234, 450 S.E.2d 237 (1994) [holding that field tests given by the arresting officer were not ``a scientific procedure,'' but ``simply a behavioral observation on the officer's part'']; Hassell v. State, 212 Ga. App. 432, 442 S.E.2d 261 (1994); Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34, 476 S.E.2d 803 (1996). Challenges to field sobriety tests based upon proof of a scientific foundation by an expert have been rejected by the court of appeals. Druitt v. State, 225 Ga. App. 150, 483 S.E.2d 117 (1997). See also Padgett v. State, 230 Ga. App. 659, 498 S.E.2d 84 (1998), where the court of appeals held that field sobriety tests are merely dexterity exercises and the word ``tests'' is a misnomer.

The reason that most credible scientists across America (and in other countries) are unwilling to categorize field tests -- even NHTSA's tests -- as being "scientific" is that too many variables are involved in roadside testing to ever eliminate pure chance and non-controlled circumstances from the equation (e.g., environmental conditions such as lighting and roadway slope). Numerous states, including Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, do not permit HGN evidence to be admitted at trial. The reason behind this is that these "party games" (as noted Swedish scientist Dr. A.W. Jones has called them) do not pass well-established rules f evidence (the court rules for determining when certain types of information may be told to the jury) for scientifically acceptable tests.

Even NHTSA admits that under optimal conditions (i.e., in an air-conditioned, well lighted room) 35% of sober, drug-free subjects get inaccurate results on the one leg stand test, 32% of sober subjects get flawed results on the walk and turn, and 23% of sober subjects are inaccurately said to be "over the legal limit" on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. By comparison, polygraph (lie detector) tests are more than 90% accurate when conducted by a qualified operator), and (absent a stipulation by both parties) are still not permitted into evidence by most courts.

Issues of unreliability and lack of scientific validity cannot be extensively addressed on this website. The author commends the following articles for your study of this fascinating subject:

THESE ARE VOLUNTARY TESTS

Only a small number of states have tried to pass laws to make the field tests not be 100% voluntary. These states typically will assess a monetary fine against someone who says "no" to these voluntary tests. So what? I tell all my fiends and relatives and clients: DON’T ATTEMPT THESE TESTS. Other states have said that the State Constitution provides that no person can be compelled to take such tests.

Case law in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions indicates that if a person is being detained or is "in custody," no field tests can be given without first providing Miranda advisements (i.e., right to remain silent; right to an attorney; if you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you). State v. O'Donnell, 225 Ga. App. 502, 484 S.E.2d 313 (1997). Hence, the new focus for defense attorneys is to establish that some sort of ``custody'' or detention has occurred prior to the field tests. See also Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222, 498 S.E.2d 262 (1998).

However, many appellate courts have bent over backward to ignore clear signs of custody. For example, despite guns being drawn on a driver, the Georgia Court of Appeals (in Hassell v. State---see citation above) ruled that this was not "custody". Of course, this is a ridiculous ruling, but part of "Georgia law," regardless.

Other courts have stood tall and said "if NHTSA tests are supposed to be scientific, then they must be done correctly". The previously mentioned Lasworth case from the New Mexico Court of Appeals is just such a case.

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that the officer’s failure to fol­low NHTSA training in administering field sobriety exercises was a factor in determining the admissibility of the test. State v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2000). In Homan, a NHTSA-trained officer’s admitted failure to administer the field sobriety exercises in strict compliance with NHTSA’s standardized testing procedures invalidated (and excluded) all of the State’s evidence about the field sobriety exercises. The Homan court made the following findings regarding the unreliability of field tests not conducted in compliance with NHTSA procedure:

When field sobriety testing is conducted in a manner that departs from established methods and procedures, the results are inherently unreliable. In an extensive study, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") evaluated field sobriety tests in terms of their utility in determining whether a subject’s blood-alco­hol concentration is below or above the legal limit. The NHTSA con­cluded that field sobriety tests are an effective means of detecting legal intoxication "only when: the tests are administered in the pre­scribed, standardized manner[,] . . . the standardized clues are used to assess the suspect’s performance[, and] . . . the standardized cri­teria are employed to interpret that performance." National High­way Traffic Safety Adm., U.S. Dept. of Transp., HS 178 R2/00, DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual (2000), at VIII-3. According to the NHTSA, "[i]f any one of the standardized field sobriety test elements is changed, the validity is compromised." Id. Experts in the areas of drunk driving apprehension, prosecution, and defense all appear to agree that the reliability of field sobriety test results does indeed turn upon the degree to which police comply with standardized testing procedures. See, e.g., 1 Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases (3 Ed.1997), Section 10.06[4]; Cohen & Green, Apprehending and Prosecuting the Drunk Driver: A Manual for Police and Prosecution (1997), Section 4.01.

ROADSIDE ALCOHOL SCREENING TESTS

A portable breath testing device may be used by police officers in determining whether or not a motorist is under the influence of alcohol. Some states have banned the use of these voluntary "non-evidential" screening devices. "Non-evidential" means that "the digital number" can’t be used against you in court. Some states have ruled that the only place at trial that these can be used is at a pre-trial hearing at which "probable cause" for arrest is involved.

Like other "field tests", these devices are used at the roadway. Often, police officers do not regularly check the devices for calibration. Furthermore, the manufacturer’s instructions (e.g., failing to observe a 15 minute deprivation period, waiting at least 4 minutes between tests, or clearing the prior test results) for proper use are routinely ignored.

Some states have started using these roadside testers as evidential tests. This is accomplished when a small printer is attached to the breath test apparatus. Unless your state uses such a device as an OFFICIAL state-mandated breath test, no person should ever submit to these devices and risk a false positive result and almost certain arrest. Politely DECLINE to give this voluntary sample, if it is not the official state test.

THE NEWEST "VOODOO" SCIENCE: THE "DEC" PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY DRUG USE

Government studies have revealed that many drivers are under the influence of drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. To combat this, an effort has been mounted since the early 1990’s to add some type of training to the police officer's arsenal that will assist in identifying drug-impaired individuals. Hence, NHTSA has created the ``Drug Evaluation and Classification'' (DEC) Program. A DEC officer does not typically work in the field (i.e., making traffic arrests), or make the initial arrest of an impaired driver. A DEC officer is called in after a subject either shows a low score on an alcohol test, or otherwise ‘smells’ like or ‘acts’ like he/she has been using drugs. The proper procedure is for the DEC officer to give Miranda warnings to the person (already in custody), and then start "the evaluation for drug usage". SIMPLE RULE: SAY NO! You have just been told of your constitutional rights---USE THEM! Say nothing and do nothing beyond say, "I’d like to speak to an attorney." More information on Your Constitutional Rights.

The function of DEC is to ascertain:

As opposed to trying to target a single ``impairing'' chemical, the DEC process seeks to ``recognize'' indications of any of seven broad categories of drugs:

The hope of the police is that these DEC evaluations can be used in court to identify impairment from drugs even if the person refuses all blood and urine testing. Absent a blood or urine test or an admission of recent drug use, "opinion" testimony must be based upon something more than a wild guess or speculation. Ironically, NHTSA designed the DEC Program for post-arrest investigation, to be done in a carefully controlled environment (as opposed to "field" evaluation).

Numerous "task force" officers across America have taken IACP-approved DEC classes to enable them to identify a subject impaired by drugs. IACP is the acronym for International Association of Chiefs of Police. Sometimes referred to as "DREs" or "DRTs" (drug recognition experts or drug recognition technicians), these officers utilize a series of simple evaluations and observations to help them identify individuals impaired by drugs.

Interestingly, even the IACP recognizes the limitations of the DEC program. For example, the agency recognizes that DEC-trained officers cannot identify exactly what drug (or drugs) a person is "on." Only one of the seven broad "categories" listed might be identified, if the person has been fully trained and certified. IACP has emphasized the need for an analytical chemical test (such as a GC-MS test) to confirm the officer's "suspicions" about drug use. This is because anything less than a chemical test is just "an educated GUESS". The law does not support guesswork in criminal trials, because the State must prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABLEDOUBT.

The DEC process includes an alcohol screening evaluation on a roadside screening device such as an Alco-Sensor. It also includes administering the NHTSA standardized field sobriety tests. The twelve components of the DEC process include:

A properly equipped DEC officer will have these items with him or her:

The DEC protocol teaches officers to not only look for either contraband (illegal) or controlled substances (i.e., those drugs which cannot be purchased without a prescription), but to take note of over-the-counter medications that the subject has ingested which may have caused or contributed to the suspect's impairment. Certain allergy and cold medicines have been determined by the American Medical Association and FDA to be particularly unsafe for persons who are driving. These include Benadryl, Allerdryl, Contac Severe Cold Formula, Vicks Nyquil, Trifed, Phenergan and others.

Although the use of DEC evaluations by "DRE" officers requires extensive training, this is a wave of the future. Decisions in several states have upheld DEC evaluations by DRE officers, utilizing both a Daubert analysis and a Frye analysis of admissibility. Daubert and Frye are well-known federal cases that have carved out the rules of when and after what type of judicial review scientific evidence can be admitted at a trial. About 45 of the 50 states follow one standard or the other. See State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1994) [using a Daubert analysis] and People v. Quinn, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818 (Suffolk County Dist. Ct. 1991), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 607 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Sup. Ct. App. Term 1993) [using a Frye analysis]. See State v. Sampson, 6 P.3d 543 (Or.App. 2000) for a fascinating analysis of prior DEC admissibility in various states.

As with other "pro-prosecution" types of "scientific" evidence, expect courts to overrule objections to DEC evaluations based on highly discretionary trial court review of "proper" evidence. The need of the State to "make our highways safe" will likely outweigh the "voodoo" nature of the DEC "opinion" evidence. The best hope for the defense is that a fair-minded judge will look at the highly irregular nature of this evidence and declare "the State has not laid a proper foundation for this scientific evidence. Therefore, this evidence is excluded."

More:

Links