I've gotten a lot of questions/concerns lately from prosecutors and officers all over Texas about defense attorneys objecting to SFST evidence because the officer hadn't re-certified on the tests every two years. It seems like defense attorneys went to a school and were told to do this because now this old attack is popping up again all over the place.

So, for clarification, while Texas Admin. Code 221.9 requires two year recertification to be a certified SFST practitioner, that certification is NOT required for officers to testify as experts in court or to administer the tests in the field. All that's required is that the officer has sufficient training and experience. The standard 24 hour SFST course anf field experience count. A case directly on point is Kerr v. State 921 SW2d 498 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

The best way I've found to defuse this sort of attack is to simply remind the judge (and jury and officer) that an SFST is nothing more than a chance for an officer to watch a person try to do something.

I start covering this in voir dire- how many have been at a family reunion and talked to Uncle Joe at sitting at a picnic table and he seems fine, then he gets up to play horseshoes and chunks one over the post and into the lake? You figured out he was intoxicated when you watched him do something that wasn't easy. That's what SFSTs are for, just a chance to observe a driver doing something other than sitting in their car. It's not magic, just a way to get an impaired driver moving and talking and (failing) to follow instructions.

SFSTs are not mandatory and therefore those that complete the tests are only giving the Officer and State more evidence to prove their case. Therefore, why would anyone in their right mind comply with the Officers request?

The defense attorney forum is that way ---->

quote:

---

Originally posted by footdr:
SFSTs are not mandatory and therefore those that complete the tests are only giving the Officer and State more evidence to prove their case. Therefore, why would anyone in their right mind comply with the Officers request?

---

Actually, footdr: EVERYONE in their "right mind" WOULD comply with the Officer's request. It's those who are no longer in their right mind (or no longer have the "normal use of their mental faculties") who would refuse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by footdr:
SFSTs are not mandatory and therefore those that complete the tests are only giving the Officer and State more evidence to prove their case. Therefore, why would anyone in their right mind comply with the Officers request?

---

Because you'll look like a moron, I'll be more than happy to show that to the jury during your trial, and an officer is going to take that as an invitation to get a blood draw search warrant...

Thank you for your response but ... <removed by administrators for inappropriate content>.

<What possesses a random person to come to this bulletin board and decide they need to share their "wisdom" with us? Fascinating. And generally permitted, until they start in with the "you should..."/"you need to..."/"You are a..." line of criticisms, which gets them a one-way ticket to being bleeped out.>

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shannon Edmonds,

Okay. And...?