People charged with DUI, DWI, and even drug intoxication, are convicted with secret FST accuracy evidence they can not examine. |
| Home | Claimed Accuracy | Raw Data | Scientific Accuracy | Secret Evidence |
This web site gives the opinions of Dr. Greg Kane. Everything you read here is expressed only as my personal opinion. |
Secret evidence |
![]() |
IF YOU THINK people charged with crimes should be able to see the evidence against them, FSTs disappoint. FST accuracy evidence is secret. The government makes extravagant claims about the accuracy of the FST, but it has never published and now refuses to release the raw data on which those claims are supposedly based. I have tried to get that raw data. Not hard you'd think; this is official government research, and the major studies are only about ten years old. |
| What evidence? |
|||
| Study |
Paid Contractor |
Paid corporation |
Raw data |
| San Diego, 1998 |
Dr. Burns, Dr. Stuster |
Anacapa Sciences |
released by Dr. Stuster |
| Florida, 1997 |
Dr. Burns |
SCRI |
|
| Colorado, 1995 |
Dr. Burns |
SCRI |
|
| 1981 |
Dr. Burns, Dr. Moskowitz, Dr. Tharp |
SCRI |
|
| 1977 |
Dr. Burns, Dr. Moskowitz |
SCRI |
|
The authors of these studies claim to have gathered data which they claim to analyze in a way they claim proves FSTs are "extremely accurate" at identifying BAC levels. Criminal defendants are unable to examine any of these claims because, with the exception of one study, the raw data on which they are supposedly based is kept secret.
| Why it matters | ![]() |
|
| 1 |
Convicting people with secret evidence is un-American. |
|
| 2 |
When the raw evidence for the San Diego study was released, it showed that 99% of everyone who took the "extremely accurate" FST failed, and that on innocent people the FST gave the wrong answer 93% of the time. |
|
| 3 |
The study reports themselves prove FST "accuracy" claims are based on statistical tricks. |
|
| 4 |
Convicting people with secret evidence is un-American. |
|
|
People charged with DUI, DWI, and even drug intoxication,
are convicted with secret FST accuracy evidence they can not examine.
When subsets of that evidence are obtained from other sources, the raw data
proves FSTs do not work.
IF YOU HAVE COPIES OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SECRET DATA SETS FOR ANY OF THESE
STUDIES, please let me know. FST (at) medmalexperts.com
Here are links to the official reports of relevant NHTSA FST studies. |
| Early NHTSA sponsored lab studies, and failed field validation studies | ||
| 1977 |
The raw data set for
this study is |
Psychophysical Tests for
DWI Arrest |
| 1981 |
"Validates" the SFST at 0.10% BAC The raw data set for this study is |
Development and Field Test of Psychophysical
Tests for DWI Arrest |
| 1983 |
The raw data set for this study
is |
Field Evaluation of a Behavioral Test
Battery for DWI |
"Successful" NHTSA sponsored SFST field validation studies cited in the Police SFST Training Manual |
||
| 1995 |
"Validates" the SFST at 0.05% BAC The raw data set for this study is |
A Colorado Validation Study of the
Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery |
| 1997 |
"Validates" the SFST at 0.08% BAC The raw data set for this study is The Final Report for this study originally included Appendix 4 -- a "case log" that presumably reveals the SFST score and BAC for each driver. If you have a copy of this secret appendix, please let me know. email: FST - (at) - medmalexperts.com |
A Florida Validation Study of the
Standardized Field Sobriety Test (S.F.S.T.) Battery |
| "Validates" the SFST at 0.08% BAC and 0.04% BAC The raw data for this study is available and posted here. On innocent drivers, at BAC 0.08%, the SFST has an accuracy of 28%. On innocent drivers, at BAC 0.04%, the SFST has an accuracy of 4%. That's not a typo. Four percent. Ninety-six percent of innocent drivers fail the SFST. |
Validation of the Standardized Field
Sobriety Test Batter at BACs Below 0.10 Percent |
|
|
Police DWI and SFST training manual |
||
2004 |
DWI Detection and Standardized
Field Sobriety Testing / Student Manual / 2004 Edition |
|