Can You Beat a DWI If You Failed the Field Sobriety Tests?

Can You Beat a DWI If You Failed the Field Sobriety Tests?
The police report says you failed every field sobriety test.
Six clues on your eyes. Eight clues on the walk and turn. Four clues on the one leg stand.
Sounds terrible, right?
Here’s the problem: you don’t get convicted because an officer writes the word “failed” in a police report.
So what are those field sobriety tests actually looking for? And how can a case that looks terrible on paper look very different when you watch the video?
There Are Three Standardized Tests
The three standardized field sobriety tests commonly used in a Texas DWI investigation are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, or HGN, the Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand.
On HGN, the officer is looking for specific eye movement clues. On the Walk and Turn, the officer watches things like whether you maintain the instructional stance, start too early, miss heel to toe, step off the line, use your arms for balance, turn incorrectly, stop, or take the wrong number of steps.
On the One Leg Stand, the officer is looking for things like swaying, using your arms for balance, hopping, or putting the foot down.
The officer takes those observations and uses them as part of the probable cause decision to arrest you.
But the phrase “failed the field sobriety tests” often hides a lot of important detail.
These are not school tests. You don’t get a 70 and pass or a 60 and fail. The officer is looking for standardized clues that the government associates with possible intoxication. That is a much more precise way to think about them.
The Video Is Often More Important Than the Report
Here’s the first thing I want in one of these cases: the video.
Because the report might say, “Subject exhibited six out of eight clues on the Walk and Turn.”
What does that actually look like?
Did the person nearly fall over? Or did they miss heel to toe by two inches on two steps? Did they wander into traffic? Or did they turn differently than the officer instructed? Did they use their arms because they had no balance? Or did an officer count a small arm movement as a clue while the person otherwise walked nine steps down and nine steps back without a problem?
Those distinctions matter to jurors.
The officer knows the scoring system. The jury sees a human being standing on the side of the road at midnight with flashing lights, traffic, wind, stress, and an officer staring at them.
Those are two very different perspectives.
Standardization Matters
The next question is: were the tests administered correctly?
These are called standardized field sobriety tests for a reason. The instructions matter. The demonstrations matter. The position of the stimulus in the HGN test matters. The timing matters. The surface matters. The opportunity to understand the instructions matters.
If an officer changes the test, rushes the instructions, gives confusing directions, or administers it under conditions that make reliable performance more difficult, that is something I want to know.
That doesn’t automatically throw the entire case out. But if the State is going to stand in front of a jury and say, “These tests show intoxication,” then I want to know whether the officer actually used the standardized procedure the tests were built around.
Physical Conditions Matter
Now let’s talk about the human being taking the test.
Do you have a knee injury? Back problems? An ankle that has been surgically repaired? Balance issues? Vision problems?
Were you wearing boots, heels, sandals, or some kind of footwear that made the test more difficult? Were you standing on a sloped shoulder next to a highway? Was it cold? Was it raining? Were cars flying past you at 60 miles an hour? Were you exhausted?
Those things do not automatically explain away every clue. But they can matter.
And this is where I dislike blanket statements like, “He failed because he was drunk.”
Maybe.
Or maybe a particular clue has another reasonable explanation.
The defense doesn’t have to pretend the test never happened. We need to explain what the evidence actually means.
HGN Is Different From the Walking Tests
HGN deserves its own category because it is harder for a jury to independently evaluate.
On the Walk and Turn, the jury can watch you walk. On the One Leg Stand, the jury can watch whether you put your foot down.
With HGN, the officer is looking at subtle eye movement that usually is not captured clearly enough on ordinary bodycam for a juror to independently score it. So the officer’s training and administration become particularly important.
Did the officer properly check for equal pupil size and equal tracking? Was the stimulus positioned and moved appropriately? Did the officer hold it long enough where the protocol calls for it? Were there environmental or medical issues worth investigating?
Again, I’m not saying HGN is fake.
I’m saying that if the State’s strongest evidence is something only the officer claims to have seen, the defense should examine how that conclusion was reached.
Bad Field Sobriety Tests Do Not Equal Automatic Conviction
This is the most important point.
Texas defines intoxication in two general ways: not having the normal use of your mental or physical faculties because of alcohol, drugs, or another substance, or having an alcohol concentration of .08 or more.
Field sobriety tests are evidence that may support the first theory. They are not the legal definition by themselves.
So I want the entire picture.
How was the driving? Did you respond normally to the officer? Could you find your license and insurance? Did you understand questions? Were you able to communicate clearly? What does your speech sound like on video? Did you get out of the vehicle normally? What do the breath or blood results show, if there are any? Did you refuse a specimen?
The case is the whole movie, not three minutes of roadside exercises.
How I Would Attack a Field Sobriety Case
If a client comes in and the report says they failed the tests, here’s the process.
First, I watch the entire bodycam from before the tests start. I don’t just watch the officer’s highlight reel.
Second, I compare the officer’s written clues to the video. If the report says “could not maintain balance,” I want to see exactly what that means.
Third, I look at the instructions. Were they clear? Were they standardized? Did the officer demonstrate what they wanted?
Fourth, I look at the environment and the client’s physical condition.
Fifth, I compare those tests to everything else. If somebody supposedly cannot stand on one leg for 30 seconds but then walks normally, speaks normally, handles their property normally, and appears coordinated through the rest of an hour long video, that contrast matters.
And finally, I decide whether the field sobriety evidence is something we can attack in negotiation or something a jury needs to see for themselves.
Can You Beat a DWI If You Failed the Field Sobriety Tests?
Absolutely possible.
But not because the tests “don’t count.”
They count.
The questions are: Were they administered correctly? Were the clues scored fairly? Do physical or environmental factors explain part of the performance? What does the video actually show? And when we look at everything together, can the State prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt?
That’s the real question.
What Should You Do Next?
If you were arrested for DWI in Collin County and the officer says you failed the field sobriety tests, don’t plead guilty based on the police report.
Get the video.
I’m Steve Sears with The Sears Law Firm in Frisco, Texas.
If you want me to go through the evidence and tell you what I actually see, reach out to my office and we’ll take a look.
Recent Posts




