Necessity of Introducing the NHTSA Manual During Motion to Suppress Hearing
January 20, 2008
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Association (NHTSA) has devised three standardized tests for determining whether or not a suspect is under the influence of alcohol. These are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (HGN), the Walk and Turn Test (WAT) and the One Leg Stand (OLS). The NHTSA Manual lays out the proper procedure for administering these tests, and states that even minor deviations from the proper procedures can make the tests invalid.
Some DUI suspects have argued at their suppression hearings that when the state fails to introduce the NHTSA manual into evidence at the hearing, the Court cannot make a determination as to whether the police officer properly administered the tests. They cite to the case of State v. Brown (2006), 166 Ohio App.3d 638 as authority. In Brown, the NHTSA testing manual was never offered into evidence and the officer never testified that he was trained in the NHTSA methods, nor did he testify that he complied with the methods. Thus Ohio’s Eleventh District Court of Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence that the NHTSA tests were administered with sufficient compliance with the testing standards, and suppressed the results of the tests from the evidence. The Court reasoned that:
“Trooper Golias’s testimony that he conducted the field sobriety tests in conformity with the manner and procedures with which he was taught is not the same as testifying that he administered the tests in substantial compliance with the guidelines set forth in the NHTSA manual. Trooper Golias failed to testify regarding the standardized requirements.”
But in the case of Ohio v. Barnett, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 4429 (September 21, 2007) Portage Co. App. No. 2006-P-0117, Ohio’s Eleventh District Court of Appeals held that the law does not require the state to introduce the manual to sustain its burden of showing compliance with the testing standards. The Court noted that The state may demonstrate substantial compliance with the NHTSA standards through competent testimony and/or introducing the applicable portions of the NHTSA manual. This means that while the NHTSA manual may be introduced into evidence, substantial compliance can also be shown by witness testimony with respect to the NHTSA standards and the officer’s actions in conformity with the standards.
In Barnett, the officer testified concerning his training in administering field sobriety tests according to NHTSA standards. He testified he successfully completed this training, and that he is certified to administer these tests in the state of Ohio. He testified concerning the NHTSA procedures with respect to each test, and that he administered the tests in compliance with them. Since the officer specifically referred to the NHTSA procedures and that he was certified in them, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals ruled that the introduction of the NHTSA manual was not necessary.
