Field Sobriety Overview

Field Sobriety Tests in Ohio

Field sobriety tests are a routine part of many OVI investigations. They are also one of the most consistently misunderstood parts of the process.

These tests are often treated as scientific or definitive. They are neither. They are roadside exercises used by officers to justify next steps, not to determine guilt. How they are administered, and how they are later described, often matters more than the test itself.

This page provides an overview of how field sobriety tests are used in Ohio OVI cases and why they frequently deserve closer scrutiny.

What These Tests Are Actually Used For

Field sobriety tests are not designed to measure how intoxicated someone is. They are used to help an officer decide whether to proceed with an arrest or request a chemical test.

That distinction matters.

The most common tests include the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand, and the eye test. Each has specific instructions and scoring criteria. When those standards are followed loosely or selectively, the reliability of the test drops.

These tests are only as good as the conditions under which they are given and the way the results are interpreted afterward.

OVI Index

Locations We Serve

Why Performance Often Has Little to Do With Impairment

Field sobriety tests assume ideal conditions and a person with no physical or situational limitations. That is rarely the case during a real traffic stop.

Poor performance can be influenced by nervousness, fatigue, injuries, balance issues, age, footwear, weather, uneven pavement, or simple confusion about the instructions. None of those things necessarily have anything to do with alcohol or drugs.

Many people who are completely sober would struggle with these tests under the same circumstances.

How These Tests Are Looked At Later

Field sobriety tests are not judged in a vacuum.

They are evaluated alongside body camera footage, dash camera footage, officer reports, and testimony. What matters is not just what the officer says happened, but whether the testing was done correctly and whether the conclusions being drawn are supported by what actually occurred.

Details that seem minor at the roadside can become very important later.

A Note on the Eye Test

The eye test, often referred to as HGN, is treated as the most technical field sobriety test. It is also one of the most frequently oversimplified.

Proper administration requires specific positioning, timing, and observation. Medical conditions, medications, lighting, and distractions can all influence what an officer believes they see. When those factors are ignored, the conclusions drawn from the test become far less reliable.

We address the eye test in more detail on its own page.

How This Fits Into an OVI Case

Field sobriety tests are one part of a larger picture. They are not proof on their own.

When these tests are administered improperly or relied on too heavily, they can distort how a case is viewed. A careful review looks at what was done, how it was done, and whether the results actually support the claims being made.

That kind of review often changes the direction of a case.

Talking Through What Happened

Most people leave an OVI stop believing they “failed” field sobriety tests without understanding what that actually means.

A conversation allows us to walk through what happened, explain how these tests are supposed to work, and talk honestly about how they may be viewed in your case. Clear explanations make it easier to understand where you stand and what matters going forward.

Talk to an OVI Attorney

Officers oftentimes make up the rules instead of following standardized procedures

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

OVI Defense

A Police Officer's Opinion and Scientific Results are Very Different Things

Field sobriety tests are often framed as objective evidence. Officers testify with confidence, jurors hear technical language, and conclusions are presented as if they rest on science. They do not. In Ohio OVI investigations , field sobriety tests ultimately depend on officer opinion. That distinction matters. When evidence is based on judgment rather than measurement, it must be evaluated differently. Calling discretion “science” does not make it so. Early in any discussion

OVI Defense

Cops Just Make Stuff Up Sometimes

Field sobriety tests are repeatedly described as standardized. Officers testify that they are trained to follow a manual, taught to administer tests the same way every time, and expected to apply uniform criteria. That description often collapses under scrutiny. In Ohio OVI investigations , officers frequently add steps that do not appear anywhere in the NHTSA manua l. These improvised techniques are not minor stylistic differences. They fundamentally change what the test is

OVI Defense

One-Leg Stand Errors and Officer Discretion in Ohio OVI Investigations

The one-leg stand test is often treated as straightforward. Officers describe it as simple, easy to administer, and easy to score. That simplicity is misleading. In Ohio OVI investigations , the one-leg stand test frequently becomes an exercise in officer discretion rather than standardized evaluation. Small deviations in timing, instruction, and interpretation can dramatically affect how performance is judged. When those deviations are ignored, the test’s reliability is ove

OVI Defense

— SCHEDULE FREE CONSULTATION —