Direct Answer Yes. Weather and road conditions can directly affect the reliability of field sobriety tests in Ohio. Poor lighting, uneven pavement, rain, wind, snow, or ice can interfere with a person’s ability to perform standardized tests as instructed, even when the person is not impaired. That matters because these tests are often treated as indicators of impairment, even though they assume ideal testing conditions that frequently do not exist. What Ohio Law Actually Says

Field sobriety tests are defended on the ground that they are standardized. Officers invoke training. Prosecutors invoke the manual. The promise is that the test being described is the test that was validated. That promise often fails. In Ohio OVI investigations , officers routinely rely on techniques the manual never endorses. When asked to justify those techniques, the response is not science or training. It is silence. The absence of authority matters, especially when the

The walk-and-turn test is often described as simple. Officers present it as straightforward, standardized, and easy to administer correctly. That assumption does not hold up. In Ohio OVI investigations , the walk-and-turn test is one of the most frequently mishandled field sobriety tests . In fact, it is second only to the HGN test in terms of officer error. The problem is not subtle. The test breaks down before it ever becomes evidence. When the foundation is flawed, the c

Field sobriety tests are often presented as scientific, standardized tools for measuring impairment. Officers testify about “clues,” scoring, and numerical cutoffs as though those numbers reflect objective, validated science. They do not. In Ohio OVI investigations , one of the most misunderstood aspects of field sobriety testing is  clue counting . The idea that observing a certain number of “clues” automatically proves impairment is a foundational assumption in many arrests