Court of Appeals of Georgia Finds “One-Leg Stand” and “Walk and Turn” Field Sobriety Tests are Not Scientific Tests under Daubert
Similar to its federal counterpart, § 24-7-702(b) of the Georgia Code provides that
- (b) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:
- (1) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
- (2) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
- (3) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
- (4) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
In its recent opinion in State v. Chambers, 2025 WL 2778049 (Ga. App. 2025), however, the Court of Appeals of Georgia found that this rule does not apply to the “one-leg stand” and “walk and turn” field sobriety tests.
In Chambers, “Donald Chambers was arrested for driving under the influence and related traffic offenses and subsequently filed a motion to suppress evidence of his field sobriety tests, arguing that the State failed to properly conduct the tests.” The officer conducting the field sobriety test for Chambers was Officer Saverion White.
For the walk and turn test, Chambers exceeded the number of steps, and he failed to walk heel to toe. White testified that Chambers demonstrated six of the six clues in the walk and turn test. White requested that Chambers perform the one-leg stand test and demonstrated it for him. However, while taking the test, Chambers failed to keep his balance and lowered his leg, and White testified that Chambers again demonstrated six out of six clues.
Chambers moved to preclude White from testifying about these failed tests, finding they failed the Daubert/Rule 702 test. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia disagreed, concluding as follows:
While Georgia courts have not yet ruled on whether these tests fall within OCGA § 24-7-702, the Legislature instructed Georgia courts to examine federal case law applying the Daubert standard to aid in our analysis….Federal courts have found that, unlike the HGN test, “the one-leg stand and walk and turn test are not scientific tests and consequently are not subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.” United States v. Henderson, No. 4:14–mj–162–MSH, 2015 WL 3477005, at *3 (M. D. Ga. June 2, 2015) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Nguyen, No. CR F 06–0075 AWI, 2008 WL 540230 at *8 (1) (E. D. Ca. February 25, 2008) (“Because psychomotor field sobriety tests [such as walk and turn and one-leg stand] are considered non-scientific or non-technical in nature, a description of the test and a defendant’s performance on the test may generally be admitted into evidence as lay opinion testimony under Rule 701, without the need for expert testimony.”); United States v. Hardie, No. 4:16-mj-88-MSH, 2017 WL 3124173 at *3 (1) (M. D. Ga. July 21, 2017) (“the one-legged stand and walk and turn test are not scientific tests, but…the HGN is a scientific test”). As such, the trial court’s conclusion that the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand tests were subject to Daubert requirements was in error.