field sobriety test in Pennsylvania

2016“Evidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or unsafe driving.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 831 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

2016“Evidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or unsafe driving.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 831 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

2023The Commonwealth may prove that a person is incapable of safe driving through the failure of a field sobriety test.” Mobley, 14 A.3d at 890 .

2022“The Commonwealth may prove that a person is incapable of safe driving through the failure of a field sobriety test.” Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887, 890 (Pa. Super. 2011) (finding sufficient evidence to prove inability to safely operate vehicle where appellant “failed four separate field sobriety tests, smelled of alcohol, and proceeded to -3- J-S21013-22 coast through a stop sign despite a police officer being in plain view”).

2025Cf. Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532 , 539- 42 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc) (“staggering, stumbling, glassy or bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech” are indicators of intoxication; “[e]vidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence . . . to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving”) (citation omitted).

2020See Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532, 539-42 (“staggering, stumbling, glassy or bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech” are signs of intoxication from a controlled substance; “[e]vidence that the driver was not in control of [herself], such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence . . . to a degree which rendered [her] incapable of safe driving”).

2025“Evidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or unsafe driving.” Commonwealth v. Palmer, 751 A.2d 223 (Pa.Super. 2000).

2025“Evidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or unsafe driving.” Palmer, 751 A.2d at 228 .

2023Id. at 228 6 Further, in Commonwealth v. Feathers, 660 A.2d 90 (Pa. ,Super. 1995), appeal granted in par,t 543 ,Pa. 401, 672 A.2d 279 , affirmed 683 A.2d 289 , 546 Pa. 139 , the Court found that evidence that the driver was not in control of herself, such as failing to pass the field sobriety test, can establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol to adegree which rendered her incapable of safe driving.

2012These facts, combined with defendant’s admission to having consumed two alcoholic beverages, amply support defendant’s conviction of this offense. 10 See Commonwealth v. Palmer, 751 A.2d 223, 228 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“Evidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving.”); Commonwealth v. Feather, 660 A.2d 90, 96 (Pa.Super. 1995) (evidence that driver had glossy eyes, slurred speech, strong odor of alcohol, imbalance, difficu

2018See Griffith, 32 A.3d at 1240 (stating that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction under section 3802(d) where the officer observed defendant’s behavior and inability to perform the field sobriety tests, and defendant admitted to taking prescription medication the morning of her arrest); see also Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887, 890 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that “[t]he Commonwealth may prove that a person is incapable of safe driving through the failure of a field sobriety test.”).

2018See id. at 1238 . -5- J-S81040-17 Furthermore, even absent evidence of erratic or unsafe driving, “[e]vidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test,” may establish that the driver was incapable of safe driving.

2018Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871, 879 (Pa. 2009); see also Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887, 890 (Pa. Super. 2011) (noting that “[t]he Commonwealth may prove that a person is incapable of safe driving through the failure of a field sobriety test.”).

2017See Segida, 985 A.2d at 879 (the Commonwealth may offer evidence of failure to pass a field sobriety test and physical signs of intoxication, e.g., odor of alcohol, or bloodshot eyes, as proof the defendant was incapable of safe driving).

2017See Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2015) (finding probable cause to arrest for DUI where driver admitted to drinking, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and the vehicle had an odor of alcohol, despite Appellant’s speech not being slurred or his driving erratic); see also Commonwealth v. Hamme, 400 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Super. 1990) (holding that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the driver was operating his motor vehicle under influence due to the smell of alcohol on his breath and failure of a field sobriety test).

2016See also Commonwealth v. Salter, 121 A.3d 987, 995 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Erratic driving is not a super-factor, much less one determinative of DUI.”).

2016The effect of such a motion is to admit all the facts which the Commonwealth’s evidence tends to prove.”) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Kowalek, 647 A.2d 948, 952 (Pa. Super. 1994) (stating that “the driver [who] was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, could establish the driver was - 13 - J-A21040-16 under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or unsafe driving.”).

1995Moreover, “evidence that the driver was not in control of [her]self, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, could establish the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered [her] incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or unsafe driving.” Commonwealth v. Kowalek, 436 Pa.Super. 361, 369 , 647 A.2d 948, 952 (1994).

2025Nevertheless, “it is not necessary for a motorist to fail a field sobriety test in order for a police officer to have reasonable grounds to request a motorist to submit to a chemical test[,]” Sisinni, 31 A.3d at 1257 ; thus, the trial court’s conclusion that Licensee successfully completed the field sobriety tests does not mean that Officer Pfister lacked reasonable grounds to conclude that Licensee was DUI. 8 asked Licensee to submit to a PBT, which Licensee refused.

2018See also, e.g., Koutsouroubas v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 61 A.3d 349, 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (“[N]o requirement exists that a lack of motor skills be exhibited in order to formulate reasonable grounds.”); Sisinni, 31 A.3d at 1257 (“[It is] not necessary for a motorist to fail a field sobriety test in order for a police officer to have reasonable grounds to request a motorist to submit to a chemical test.”). 4 Additionally, in her brief, Licensee states that there was no legal basis for Trooper Shoeman’s traffic stop.

2024The “purpose of the field sobriety test is to assist the officer in determining whether a driver should be placed under arrest, not whether the driver is actually intoxicated.” Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Harbaugh, 595 A.2d 715, 718 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991).

1994Specifically, in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Harbaugh, 141 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 288, 595 A.2d 715 (1991), this Court noted the following: Although Harbaugh believes that it was unreasonable for Jefferson to request that he submit to a second chemical test because he had passed the second set of field sobriety tests, field sobriety tests do not constitute chemical testing for purposes of Section 1547(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a)_ The sole purpose of the field sobriety test is' to assist the officer in determining whether a driver should be placed u

2024A licensee’s performance on a field sobriety test is “one more factor to be taken into account when determining the existence of reasonable grounds.” 6 Kuzneski v. Commonwealth, 511 A.2d 951, 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); see Koutsouroubas, 61 A.3d at 353 ; DiPaolo, 700 A.2d at 572 .

2011Sisinni’s reliance on his performance on the field sobriety tests is also misplaced, because it is not required that a motorist fail a field sobriety test in order for a police officer to have reasonable grounds. 4 DiPaolo, 700 A.2d at 572 .

2024See Sloan, 303 A.3d at 168 (asking where marijuana was located did not require Miranda warnings because detention had not become custodial where traffic stop was on the side of a public road, Sloan was sitting in his own car and he was neither restrained nor subjected to threats of force); Commonwealth v. Proctor, 657 A.2d 8 , 11–12 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant-motorist not in custody when detained at an accident scene for a short time to permit the officer to complete investigation and conduct a field sobriety test because defendant’s freedom of movement was not inhibited in any significant w

2001Bruder, 488 U.S. at 11 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 205 . [3] See, Commonwealth v. Proctor, 441 Pa.Super. 176 , 657 A.2d 8, 11-12 , appeal denied, 542 Pa. 645 , 666 A.2d 1054 (1995) (defendant-motorist not in custody when detained at an accident scene for a short time period to allow the police officer to complete his investigation and conduct a field sobriety test because defendant's freedom of movement was not inhibited in any significant way); Commonwealth v. Leib, 403 Pa.Super. 223 , 588 A.2d 922, 931 (1991) (statements of a defendant-motorist were not suppressed because his seizure was not custodial i

2024A licensee’s performance on a field sobriety test is “one more factor to be taken into account when determining the existence of reasonable grounds.” 6 Kuzneski v. Commonwealth, 511 A.2d 951, 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); see Koutsouroubas, 61 A.3d at 353 ; DiPaolo, 700 A.2d at 572 .

2018See also, e.g., Koutsouroubas v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 61 A.3d 349, 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (“[N]o requirement exists that a lack of motor skills be exhibited in order to formulate reasonable grounds.”); Sisinni, 31 A.3d at 1257 (“[It is] not necessary for a motorist to fail a field sobriety test in order for a police officer to have reasonable grounds to request a motorist to submit to a chemical test.”). 4 Additionally, in her brief, Licensee states that there was no legal basis for Trooper Shoeman’s traffic stop.

2025O’Neill, 514 A.2d at 1009 .

2018Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O'Neill, 514 A.2d 1008, 1009 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). -5- J-S76045-17 The results of a field sobriety test or the lack thereof, are but one factor for a factfinder to consider in the determination of whether a defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence.

1992“These facts support a finding that the [police’s] decision to ... [perform a field sobriety test was] a product of the lawful Terry stop---- The test was conducted to obtain information as to whether appellee] was intoxicated.” Commonwealth v. Kloch, 230 Pa.Super. 563 , 327 A.2d 375, 382 (1974).

1992“These facts support a finding that the [police’s] decision to ... [perform a field sobriety test was] a product of the lawful Terry stop---- The test was conducted to obtain information as to whether appellee] was intoxicated.” Commonwealth v. Kloch, 230 Pa.Super. 563 , 327 A.2d 375, 382 (1974).

2024See Sloan, 303 A.3d at 168 (asking where marijuana was located did not require Miranda warnings because detention had not become custodial where traffic stop was on the side of a public road, Sloan was sitting in his own car and he was neither restrained nor subjected to threats of force); Commonwealth v. Proctor, 657 A.2d 8 , 11–12 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant-motorist not in custody when detained at an accident scene for a short time to permit the officer to complete investigation and conduct a field sobriety test because defendant’s freedom of movement was not inhibited in any significant w

2001Bruder, 488 U.S. at 11 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 205 . [3] See, Commonwealth v. Proctor, 441 Pa.Super. 176 , 657 A.2d 8, 11-12 , appeal denied, 542 Pa. 645 , 666 A.2d 1054 (1995) (defendant-motorist not in custody when detained at an accident scene for a short time period to allow the police officer to complete his investigation and conduct a field sobriety test because defendant's freedom of movement was not inhibited in any significant way); Commonwealth v. Leib, 403 Pa.Super. 223 , 588 A.2d 922, 931 (1991) (statements of a defendant-motorist were not suppressed because his seizure was not custodial i

2026Sisinni, 31 A.3d at 1257 . “[A]n officer’s reasonable belief that the licensee was [DUI] will justify a request to submit to chemical testing if one reasonable interpretation of the circumstances as they appeared at the time supports the officer’s belief.” Yencha, 187 A.3d at 1045 (citations and quotations omitted).

2025See Reed, 216 A.3d at 1119 . -8- J-S15027-25 was in the driver’s seat when Trooper Rosky arrived at the single-vehicle crash of an overturned vehicle, displayed common indicators of alcohol impairment, failed a field sobriety test, admitted drinking alcohol prior to driving, and refused a blood test.

2025See also Cahill, 324 A.3d at 527 (recognizing the Commonwealth can prove impairment through demeanor or performance on a field sobriety test).

2025Regarding Section 3802(d), “to convict a defendant under this section, the Commonwealth must establish three elements: 1) that the defendant drove; 2) while under the influence of a controlled substance; and 3) to a degree that impairs the defendant’s ability to drive safely.” Commonwealth v. Spence, 290 A.3d 301, 309 (Pa.Super. 2023). “[S]ubsection 3802(d)(2) does not limit, constrain, or specify the type of evidence that the -7- J-A26034-25 Commonwealth can proffer to prove its case.” Commonwealth v. Griffith, 613 Pa. 171, 183 , 32 A.3d 1231, 1239 (2011).

2024A licensee’s performance on a field sobriety test is “one more factor to be taken into account when determining the existence of reasonable grounds.” 6 Kuzneski v. Commonwealth, 511 A.2d 951, 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); see Koutsouroubas, 61 A.3d at 353 ; DiPaolo, 700 A.2d at 572 .