Horizontal Gaze And Nystagmus Research Paper

Q: Are roadside inspectors equipped to detect that new kind of fraud that a conventional opacity test can’t perceive?

(R. at 15). The driver “patently refused and started yelling” at Officer Dennehey, screaming things such as, “I don’t have to blow into that. You can’t make me take any test!” and “Fine! We’ll see who’s drunk.” (R. at 9 and 15). Officer Dennehey arrested the driver. (R. at 15). As she explained, “[r]efusing to take a breathalyzer is immediate grounds for arrest.” (R. at 15). Officer Dennehey told the driver that he was arrested for driving while intoxicated and continued following “standard procedure,” including frisking the arrestee “to make sure that [the person does] not have weapons hidden on their person. (R. at

Colorado law outlines driving under the influence, driving while impaired, and driving with excessive alcoholic content in C.R.S. § 42-4-1301. Furthermore, pursuant to C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1 any person who drives a motor vehicle on the streets of Colorado has expressly consented to cooperating in the taking and completing of any test or tests of breath or blood to determine or estimate his or her blood alcohol content (“BAC”) if directed by a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence or impaired as defined in C.R.S. § 42-4-1031. As such, in situations where alcohol may be involved an officer is required to have probable cause to request a driver to submit to a breath or blood test for BAC. The standard of “probable cause to require a test” is defined as an officer's belief “the person was driving a motor vehicle” while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. See C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(I).

The effects of alcohol include blurred or double vision, impaired attention and slowed reflexes. Your life and the lives of others can change forever if you drive after drinking alcohol.

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years, upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of our projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in their computation. It is true. There are not enough drivers who drive under the influence. In the year 2001, MADD Online approximated that only one in ten drivers, a mere 25 million, drove drunk, and, consequently these drivers were the ones significantly more likely to be involved in a crash of some sort, but why shouldn’t we level the playing field? (1)

Some exceptions that have been argued in drunk driving cases are “exigent circumstances” and “search-incident-to-arrest.” The method that has been used in drunk driving incidents is a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) test. The BAC test can be administered either through a breath test or a blood test. The courts have determined that taking a blood sample or administering a breath test constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767-768 (1966).

Most states that do not allow roadblocks for DUI checkpoints can set up administrative checkpoints to verify license and insurance (FreeAdvice Staff, n.d.). However, if an officer is asking for license and proof of insurance and discovers a person may be driving intoxicated they then can start an investigation to determine if the person is driving under the influence. During any checkpoint, it is imperative that each officer strictly follows the requirements set up by either their department or state. Failure to follow these requirements could result in suppression of any evidence

The actual assessments within a field sobriety test may vary. Generally, they consist of a number of assessments that examine a driver's balance, dexterity, and motor skills. Officers will ask drivers to perform certain tasks. Typically, failure of these tests act as evidence that the driver in question is under the influence of a substance.

Also one must look into some of the misunderstandings about defending a suspect who is accused of drunk driving. One of the main misapprehensions of being accused of driving while under the influence is an excessive margin of the people accused of driving while under the influence are guilty. In the majority of Dui cases like these, just a breath exam is used, not a blood examination, which is much more exact than just a breath exam. Yet still in the majority of cases the lack of effort and an even less amount of argument goes into cases which only involve a breath exam. This face can be because of the method is in state approved and a massive amount of law enforcement agency are obligated for the jurisdiction which is used by the agencies. According to a study that has been done on field sobriety tests, they are not given similarly time after time. Showing that most officers are conducting field sobriety test in the wrong/inconsistence manners. The field sobriety tests are normally assumed to be inconclusive for the reasons as the suspect/accused could have any known/unknown medical conduction that the officers could mostly likely mistake. For example, bloodshot eyes while driving and under the influence, but due to ones medical conduction could actually be caused by contact lenses irritation or allergies. Finally to concluded these misunderstandings on the No-Refusal law, that it is/could be a more effective way to have fewer unlawfully convictions only due to the required blood draw for a more accurate and effective reading of blood alcohol level instead of the breath test or other field sobriety test the officers might conduct. In a recent article in “russellfrostlaw” it states that, “Law enforcement officers across the state claim that the program

First off, I do not drink. Yet, I’ve had many experiences relating to drinking and driving through my friends. One thing I’ve noticed is that it is extremely hard for people to tell if they are legally drunk or not. Furthermore, I have never heard any

If the officer believed you were intoxicated due to red eyes or slower speech, you can challenge it. The signs of intoxication could also be caused by another factor, so these indicators do not mean that you were driving under the influence.

The motorist in the video Top 3 Sobriety Tests No. 2 aroused the officer's suspicion when her car was veering between lanes the highway. When stopped, the motorist seemed uncertain of what she was doing and where she was. "I don't know," she replied when asked how much she had to drink. She was barely able to put the car in park and seemed more concerned about tying her shoelaces than the test or her serious situation. Questions which often arise when determining if someone is driving under the influence are: "Does the person answer the officer's question or exhibit a stream of consciousness talking that bears no relation to the question? Does the person appear to be disheveled or unable to stay alert?" (Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen 2010: 122). The woman in the video exhibited all of these 'red flag' signs. However, the officer's use of the field sobriety tests indicates that even when intoxication may seem 'obvious' it is still necessary to establish DUI with objective sources of information. The ability of the driver to perform the tests assigned

Electronystagmography is a procedure used to look at involuntary rapid eye movement (nystagmus). Nystagmus is when your eyes move from side to side or up and down very rapidly without you making this happen. It is normal for this to occur in response to certain stimuli, such as changing head position. If nystagmus does not occur, this can indicate a problem with the inner ear or various parts of the brain. The procedure may be done to check for a tumor, an infection, a low blood supply, or other problems. Your health care provider may recommend this procedure to help determine the cause of vertigo, which is a sensation that you or your surroundings are moving when they are not.

Binocular single vision is achieved when an object from same position in space stimulates corresponding points on the retina. This simultaneous stimulation of corresponding retinal points results in the perception of viewing a single object with the two eyes. In someone with normal retinal correspondence, diplopia occurs when an object being viewed stimulates non-corresponding parts of the retina. This results in the perception of two, disparate objects located in different positions in space that are unable to be fused as one object (Greer, 2014). Ms. Bechler reports she has been experiencing intermittent vertical diplopia for the past 3 months. Her recent onset of transient diplopia indicates the diplopia may be secondary to a recent change in her ocular and/or systemic health.

Quite often, I get compliments on my eyes for their bright blue color. Not only am I given positive comments, but questions as well. For example, “What’s wrong with your eyes?” or “Why do your eyes move like that?” Trying to not bore people with a long medical definition of the exact issue, I simply reply with “I have Nystagmus.” Typically, I’ll receive dumbfounded expressions. Because of this, I try to give people a straightforward explanation. Nystagmus is a condition in the eye that causes uncontrollable movement, typically involving poor vision. Basically the muscles in my eyes are feeble. I have learned to adapt to my surroundings while living with my condition. Consequently every day is a challenge in some way or other.