In City of Wichita v. Molitor, the court held that evidence of a DUI suspect's performance on the HGN test (pen test) is admissible to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to request a preliminary breath test. This may be significant in that no court in Kansas has found the HGN scientific enough to admit its results in trial, yet this opinion says the court, though not a jury, can used the opinion of the testing officer as relates to performance on this test as justification for a continued investigation.
This is a ridiculous opinion, though not that surprising. Previously, since no prosecutor has thus far been able to cross the T's and dot the I's needed to show even one scintilla of reliability, the only admissible aspect of the HGN was whether a driver followed instructions. Now, despite the fact that we still do not know if the test has any scientific merit whatsoever, the court may consider the officer's opinion as to whether a driver fails or passes the test.
FYI, the HGN looks for bouncing pupils at one's extreme viewing angles. Allegedly, if they bounce, there's drugs or alcohol in the blood. However, the truth is that there are just as many studies out there that reveal a similar number of people without any drugs or alcohol in their system eliciting bouncing pupils, or nystagmus. Hence, this is bad science that the court may now consider at least during the preliminary phases of the legal process.
In a word, I call this ruling crap.
0 comments:
Post a Comment