You stood on one leg. You walked a line. You followed a penlight with your eyes. The officer watched, made notes, and concluded you “failed.” Now that failure anchors the prosecution’s case—evidence that you were too impaired to drive.
Here’s what the officer didn’t tell you: field sobriety tests are designed to produce failure. Healthy, sober people fail them routinely. The conditions are impossible—uneven pavement, passing traffic, flashing lights, an armed officer scrutinizing your every movement. Nervousness alone causes the same physiological responses officers interpret as impairment. Age, weight, medical conditions, footwear, and fatigue all affect performance in ways that have nothing to do with alcohol.
Eastside DUI has challenged field sobriety test evidence in King County for 15 years. Our attorneys—Roberto Yranela, Matthew Skau, and Robin Tu—understand that FST “failures” reflect test design and officer interpretation more than actual impairment. A Bellevue, WA DUI lawyer from our firm can examine how your tests were administered, whether proper protocols were followed, and whether the results actually prove what the prosecution claims.
Contact us for a free consultation.
Why Choose Eastside DUI For Field Sobriety Test Defense In Bellevue, WA?
We Know These Tests Are Flawed
Field sobriety tests aren’t scientific instruments. They’re subjective observations filtered through officer expectations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration developed standardized field sobriety tests in the 1970s—and even under ideal conditions, those tests misidentify sober individuals as impaired roughly 20-30% of the time. Roadside conditions are never ideal.
A Bellevue field sobriety test failed attorney who understands this reality approaches your case differently than one who accepts officer conclusions at face value. We examine administration protocols, environmental conditions, your physical characteristics, and whether the officer’s interpretation matches what actually happened.
Roberto Yranela has challenged field sobriety test evidence since beginning his practice in 2013. He’s studied NHTSA protocols, understood their limitations, and learned how to expose the gap between standardized procedures and actual roadside administration. His psychology background from the University of Washington informs how he addresses confirmation bias—officers who expect impairment tend to find it regardless of actual condition. His J.D. from Valparaiso University School of Law equipped him to present these challenges effectively in court.
Recognized DUI Defense Credentials
Super Lawyers named Roberto Yranela to the Top 40 Under 40 for DUI defense. The National Trial Lawyers included him in their Top 40 Under 40. Avvo honored him with Client’s Choice recognition. When you need a DUI attorney in Bellevue who can systematically dismantle field sobriety test evidence, our credentials demonstrate that experience.
Subjective Tests Deserve Skeptical Defense
Unlike breath tests that produce numbers, field sobriety tests produce opinions. One officer’s “failed” is another’s “inconclusive.” We challenge both the administration and the interpretation—forcing prosecutors to defend evidence that’s far weaker than they want juries to believe.
What Our Clients Say
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ “Roberto was able to help me out and get two speeding tickets dismissed. Getting set up with him was an easy 10 minute phone call and pretty much everything else was taken care of for me from there. Very professional communication and he was great to work with. Would definitely work with him again if I get any more tickets.” – Tim Wick
Types Of Field Sobriety Test Cases We Handle In Bellevue
Field sobriety evidence appears in various case contexts. Our DUI defense attorneys challenge FST results across all situations.
- Standardized test failures. The three NHTSA-approved standardized tests—Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn, and One-Leg Stand—have specific administration protocols. A Bellevue DUI lawyer examines whether officers followed those protocols precisely. Deviations undermine the already-limited validity of these tests.
- Non-standardized test failures. Officers sometimes administer tests NHTSA never validated—finger-to-nose, alphabet recitation, counting backwards. These tests have no established correlation with impairment. Knowing your rights after arrest includes understanding that non-standardized tests carry minimal evidentiary weight.
- FST failures without breath test. When defendants refuse breath testing, field sobriety results become the prosecution’s primary evidence. Challenging breathalyzer results isn’t possible when there are none—but challenging subjective FST interpretations becomes the path to acquittal.
- FST failures contradicting breath test. Sometimes breath test results don’t match FST performance. A defendant showing minimal impairment indicators on field tests but elevated BAC—or vice versa—presents inconsistencies that create reasonable doubt about both evidence types.
- Medical condition cases. Inner ear problems, neurological conditions, injuries, arthritis, obesity, and medications affect balance and coordination in ways indistinguishable from alcohol impairment. Your FST “failure” may reflect health issues rather than intoxication.
- Environmental condition cases. Sloped surfaces, gravel, wet pavement, poor lighting, extreme temperatures, and traffic distractions all affect FST performance. Officers rarely document these factors adequately—or consider them when interpreting results.
Washington Legal Requirements For Field Sobriety Tests
Washington law permits field sobriety tests as evidence in DUI cases, but their weight depends on proper administration and reasonable interpretation. Understanding the legal framework reveals where challenges apply.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration developed standardized field sobriety testing protocols that Washington officers generally follow. These protocols specify exactly how each test should be administered, what instructions should be given, and how results should be scored. Deviation from protocols compromises whatever validity the tests possess.
Field sobriety evidence contributes to probable cause determinations under RCW 46.61.502. Officers use FST observations to establish grounds for arrest and breath testing. A DUI lawyer in Bellevue challenges whether FST results actually supported probable cause—or whether officers arrested based on predetermined conclusions.
At trial, FST evidence faces scrutiny under evidentiary rules. Officers must demonstrate training in standardized administration. They must articulate specific observations rather than conclusory opinions. A Bellevue DUI attorney cross-examines officers on their training, their adherence to protocols, and the factual basis for their conclusions.
The Washington State Courts have recognized that field sobriety tests have limitations. Juries may consider FST evidence, but they’re not required to accept officer interpretations uncritically. Presenting the scientific limitations of these tests helps jurors evaluate FST evidence appropriately.
Challenging Failed Field Sobriety Tests In Bellevue
A Bellevue field sobriety test failed lawyer attacks FST evidence through multiple angles:
- Protocol deviation analysis. NHTSA protocols specify exact procedures for each standardized test. The One-Leg Stand requires specific instructions, specific timing, and specific observation criteria. The Walk-and-Turn demands particular surface conditions and precise demonstration. HGN testing requires controlled stimulus movement at specified speeds. We compare what officers did against what protocols require. Deviations—and there almost always are deviations—undermine result validity.
- Environmental condition examination. Roadside conditions are never laboratory conditions. Uneven pavement affects balance tests. Passing headlights interfere with HGN assessment. Cold temperatures cause shivering. Wind affects stability. Our drunk driving defense team documents conditions that affected your performance and presents them as alternative explanations for any observed difficulties.
- Physical characteristic considerations. NHTSA research establishing FST validity used study participants of certain ages, weights, and physical conditions. The tests weren’t validated for elderly individuals, overweight individuals, or those with physical limitations. We present how your specific characteristics affect expected performance—independent of any alcohol consumption.
- Medical condition documentation. Inner ear disorders affect balance. Neuropathy affects leg coordination. Back problems affect walking tests. Eye conditions affect HGN. We obtain medical records and specialist testimony explaining how your conditions produce the same observations officers attribute to impairment.
- Video evidence comparison. Dash cameras and body cameras often show performance that looks different than officer narratives suggest. Someone described as “swaying significantly” might appear reasonably steady on video. Someone characterized as “unable to follow instructions” might demonstrate clear comprehension. Knowing what to avoid saying during your stop matters, but video evidence of what you actually did matters equally.
- Officer training and experience scrutiny. How much FST training has this officer received? When was it last refreshed? How many FST evaluations has the officer conducted? What’s the officer’s track record—do they find impairment in most subjects regardless of ultimate case outcomes? Cross-examination exposes officers who approach FST evaluation with predetermined conclusions.
- Confirmation bias exposure. Officers who stop someone for suspected DUI expect to find impairment. That expectation colors everything they observe. Neutral behaviors get interpreted negatively. Normal nervousness becomes “confusion.” Reasonable caution becomes “hesitation.” Working with a DUI defense attorney who understands cognitive bias and can explain it to jurors reframes how they evaluate officer testimony.
Contact Eastside DUI
Field sobriety test “failure” sounds damning. Prosecutors want it to sound that way. But these tests fail sober people constantly. They’re administered under impossible conditions, interpreted through biased expectations, and treated as scientific when they’re anything but. Our Bellevue field sobriety test failed lawyers have spent 15 years exposing these realities—challenging officer conclusions, presenting alternative explanations, and showing juries why FST evidence doesn’t prove what prosecutors claim.
We offer free consultations to review your field sobriety test evidence and identify applicable challenges. DUI defense fees start at $3,500, and we explain costs directly before you commit.
Failing a test designed for failure isn’t proof of guilt. Contact Eastside DUI today.
