I have an officer that went through the NHTSA SFST certification course in Arkansas back in the late 90's. Since then, he has transfered to TX, but never got re-SFST certified in Texas. He says that his sergeant told him that he couldn't conduct the SFST's anymore though because his certification could not be recognized by the state of Texas. Unfortunately, this was told to him after he did conduct the SFST's in my case that is now going to trial. Does anyone know if an officer that goes through an SFST certification course in another state (but it is taught by NHTSA) has to be re-certified in Texas in order for them to be recognized as certified?

Does it really invalidate the observations they made if they are not certified? The only SFST that it would matter - and only potentially - is the HGN. I honestly have to argue that more often than I would care to in cases in which the officer either (1) wasn't "certified" (according to their testimony), or (2) was certified, but screwed up the tests somehow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mbgb4:
I have an officer that went through the NHTSA SFST certification course in Arkansas back in the late 90's. Since then, he has transfered to TX, but never got re-SFST certified in Texas. He says that his sergeant told him that he couldn't conduct the SFST's anymore though because his certification could not be recognized by the state of Texas. Unfortunately, this was told to him after he did conduct the SFST's in my case that is now going to trial. Does anyone know if an officer that goes through an SFST certification course in another state (but it is taught by NHTSA) has to be re-certified in Texas in order for them to be recognized as certified?

---

Why would it matter? The SFST training should be the same all over the nation since it is put out by NHTSA. Do you have these problems with any other type of certifications?

I think Gretchen is right. You ought to be able to offer his observations and any recording of the tests. The only thing a certification would arguably prove is his expertise in interpreting the results, which is mostly important with the HGN test--the defense may be able to argue that he should not be allowed to testify to the sorts of things a certified expert would. I wouldn't lay down on that fight either, though. He should still be permitted to testify to anything a lay person observing the same thing would (i.e. "I saw him drop his foot on the count of 2"...etc.), and he should still be permitted to testify based on his personal experience in dealing with intoxicated individuals as to his own opinion.

While I understand the value of standardized field tests, the defense will always try to make more out of a deviation from those standards than I believe is justified. I think most jurors can make a rational decision on whether my inability to stand on one foot while touching my nose and reciting the greek alphabet backwards really indicated anything about intoxication. By the same token, I think most jurors can gather some relevant evidence from FSTs that aren't performed exactly as prescribed.

I had an officer move from a different city in Tx and told me when I asked him some q's about a problematic administration that he was "taught different." My local SFST instructor said my subject line--they are taught the same all across the country--if taught by NHTSA, so if he was certified through the class, he got the same class he would get here. He should still be an expert as long as he was certified somewhere.

If your officer completed the NHTSA approved 24 hour SFST Practitioner Course, then he received the same training that is taught in Texas. There is no requirement that he get "re-SFST certified in Texas" in order to be able to administer the tests.

I would strongly suggest that he attend a 8 hour SFST Update class, especially since he received his original training in the late 90's.

His sergeant may be referring to the SFST Testing Practitioner Certificate that is issued by TCLEOSE (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education). He would have to submit prove that he attended the NHTSA approved course and then meet all of the other criteria before TCLEOSE would issue him the certificate.

Having your Practitioner Certificate looks good but is not required to administer the tests. If you need any more information email me or give me a call.


John B. Lyons
SFST/DRE Instructor
Criminal Investigator

Tarrant County District Attorney's Office
Criminal Investigation Division
Fort Worth, Texas
817-212-6809 office
jblyons@tarrantcounty.com