New York Criminal Attorney Blog

Previously I discussed New York Court of Appeal’s cases which held that the police do not have to read a DWI suspect his or her rights before requesting that they perform Field Sobriety Tests because such tests are not testimonial or communicative. People v. Hager, 69 N.Y.2d 141, 512 N.Y.S.2d 794 (1987); People v. Berg, 92 N.Y.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1999).
But where the officer requests the suspect to recite the alphabet or perform a finger count test, those responses are verbal and therefore, at the very least communicative. However, the Third Department has held that an officer need not read a suspect his or her Miranda Warnings prior to requesting that the suspect recite the alphabet or perform the finger count test because such tests are not communicative or testimonial in that they don’t reveal the person’s subjective knowledge or thought processes. People v. Hasenflue, 252 A.D.2d 829, 675 N.Y.S.2d 464 (3rd Dept. 1998). The Court of Appeals has reached the same conclusion regarding the alphabet and finger count tests. People v. Berg, 92 N.Y.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1999)(these tests are not testimonial or communicative in that they do not require a person to reveal knowledge of facts relating to the offense).
For information regarding Driving While Intoxicated in New York or to schedule a free consultation, please call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-888-DWI-COUNSEL or visit us on the web at www.888DWICOUNSEL.COM.

Many times those charged with a New York Driving While Intoxicated charge will complain that they never were read their rights. When one must be read their “rights” is beyond the scope of this blog. However, for purposes of Field Sobriety Tests, the issue addressed in this blog is whether one must be read their “rights”, or what are commonly known as “Miranda Warnings”, prior to being asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests.

The answer is no. In People v. Hager, the New York Court of Appeals held that the police do not have to give a DWI suspect his or her Miranda Warnings prior to the administration of Field Sobriety Tests. 69 N.Y.2d 141, 512 N.Y.S.2d 794 (1987). In rendering its decision, the Court noted that the privilege against self incrimination prevents the state from compelling a person to provide testimonial or communicative evidence. In 1999, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed this holding in People v. Berg 92 N.Y.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1999) again holding that Miranda warnings are not required to allow Field Sobriety Tests into evidence.

So therefore, the police do not have to inform a motorist of his or her right to refuse to perform Field Sobriety Tests (People v. Sheridan, 192 A.D.2d 1057, 596 N.Y.S.2d 245 (4th Dept. 1993)) nor do they have to read them their Miranda Warnings prior to requesting they perform the tests.

Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) are designed to test one’s physical abilities and well as their ability to divide their attention between multiple tasks or instructions. They are utilized by officers in making a decision to arrest a motorist for Driving While Intoxicated. In order to arrest a motorist for DWI, New York law requires that the police officer have probable cause to believe that the motorist had been driving in an intoxicated condition. FSTs are designed to aid the police officer in deciding whether he has probable cause to believe that the person is intoxicated. Most of us have seen the “walk and turn” test, the “one-leg-stand” test or the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (the “follow my finger” test) on videos, in the movies or if you have been suspected of driving while intoxicated and have been asked to perform them by the officer.

The question many ask is, “must I perform these tests?” It’s a very legitimate question. Should one attempt the Walk-and-Turn and One-Leg-Stand tests on the side of highway with cars passing at 55 mph in the middle of the night? Keep in mind; these tests are difficult for sober people to successfully perform. (That’s why judges will almost never allow a defense request that the officer show the court exactly how that officer demonstrated the test for the motorist – as the officer is required to do).

A motorist does have the right to refuse to perform Field Sobriety Tests however; the police have no obligation to inform the motorist of his or her right to refuse to perform the tests. People v. Sheridan, 192 A.D.2d 1057, 596 N.Y.S.2d 245 (4th Dept. 1993); see also People v. Capraella, 165 Misc.2d 639, 629 N.Y.S.2d 965 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.,1995)(holding that the police have no obligation to inform motorist that they can refuse to perform field sobriety tests). However, one’s refusal to perform field sobriety tests is admissible at trial. People v. Berg