Can you refuse field sobriety tests in Georgia?

Yes. In Georgia, field sobriety tests are entirely voluntary. No Georgia statute requires a driver to submit to standardized field sobriety tests, and no penalty is imposed for refusing them. More significantly, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the right against self-incrimination under Article I, Section I, Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution protects a driver's refusal to perform field sobriety tests — and that refusal cannot be disclosed to a jury or used to draw a negative inference against the defendant. This means that if you refuse to perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Walk-and-Turn test, or the One-Leg Stand test, the prosecution cannot tell the jury you refused. Because these tests are administered by the same officer who already suspects impairment, have documented error rates, and generate observations that become part of the State's evidence, refusing them is generally the wiser choice. Brett Willis Law LLC advises clients throughout Hall County and North Georgia on DUI rights and defenses, including the strategic advantages of declining field sobriety tests at the roadside.

What are the three standardized field sobriety tests recognized in Georgia?

Three tests developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are validated and recognized by Georgia courts: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the One-Leg Stand test. The HGN test measures involuntary eye jerking as the eye tracks a moving stimulus. The Walk-and-Turn requires nine heel-to-toe steps along a line, a prescribed turn, and a return. The One-Leg Stand requires standing on one foot for thirty seconds. Officers are trained to observe specific clues on each test correlated with BAC levels above 0.08. Non-standardized tests — such as reciting the alphabet or counting backward — lack this NHTSA validation but may still be referenced in police reports and trial testimony.

Are field sobriety tests accurate and reliable?

NHTSA's own research acknowledges meaningful error rates for all three validated tests under controlled conditions: the HGN test correctly identifies impairment in approximately 88 percent of cases, the Walk-and-Turn in approximately 79 percent, and the One-Leg Stand in approximately 83 percent. This means a significant percentage of sober drivers will exhibit enough clues to be scored as impaired. Beyond statistical reliability, many non-alcohol factors affect performance — age, weight, physical injuries, road surface, footwear, lighting, and the stress of a roadside encounter with law enforcement. These variables are not always accounted for in an officer's scoring, and their observations become part of the evidence presented against the defendant at trial.

What is the difference between refusing field sobriety tests and refusing a chemical test in Georgia?

These are entirely separate legal categories with different consequences. Field sobriety tests are voluntary in Georgia — there is no penalty for refusing them, and refusal cannot be used against a defendant at trial. Chemical tests — breath, blood, or urine — are governed by O.C.G.A. § 40-5-67.1, Georgia's implied consent law. Refusing a chemical test results in an administrative license suspension of up to one year, and that refusal can be disclosed to the jury in a DUI trial as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The decision whether to submit to a chemical test is more nuanced and depends on the defendant's specific circumstances, including the available evidence and the viability of suppression arguments. Drivers rarely have the opportunity to consult an attorney before making that decision at the scene.

How can Brett Willis Law LLC help with field sobriety test issues in a Georgia DUI case?

Brett Willis Law LLC defends clients charged with DUI throughout Gainesville, Hall County, and North Georgia, including cases where field sobriety test evidence is central to the prosecution's case. Award-winning attorney Brett Willis — named to The Fulton County Daily Report's 10 Lawyers You Need to Know, recognized as a Harvard Law School Trial Advocacy Program Instructor, and rated by Super Lawyers — brings extensive trial experience to every DUI defense. The firm evaluates whether field sobriety tests were properly administered under NHTSA protocols, whether non-validated tests were improperly used, and whether suppression motions can exclude unlawfully obtained evidence. A thorough challenge to field sobriety test administration and scoring can fundamentally weaken the State's case. Contact Brett Willis Law LLC for a free consultation.

Understanding Field Sobriety Tests Can You Refuse in Georgia

Field sobriety tests are a central component of DUI investigations in Georgia, yet many drivers do not fully understand what these tests are, how they are used, or—most importantly—that they have the constitutional right to refuse them. Understanding these issues before encountering a DUI stop can be one of the most consequential pieces of legal knowledge a driver can have.

What Are Standardized Field Sobriety Tests?

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) are a battery of psychophysical tests developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assist law enforcement in detecting alcohol impairment in drivers. Three tests have been validated by NHTSA research and are recognized by Georgia courts: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the One-Leg Stand test.

The HGN test measures the involuntary jerking of the eye—known as nystagmus—as it tracks a moving object. Alcohol consumption at impairing levels causes nystagmus to occur at earlier angles of gaze and in a more pronounced form. The Walk-and-Turn test requires the subject to take nine heel-to-toe steps along a line, turn in a prescribed manner, and return. The One-Leg Stand test requires the subject to stand on one foot with the other raised approximately six inches off the ground for thirty seconds. Officers are trained to observe specific clues on each test that are correlated with BAC levels above 0.08 under NHTSA’s validation research.

Non-standardized tests—such as reciting the alphabet, counting backward, picking up coins, or touching a finger to the nose—are not part of NHTSA’s validated battery and are not subject to the same research support. Nevertheless, officers sometimes administer them, and their results may be referenced in police reports and trial testimony.

The Legal Right to Refuse Field Sobriety Tests in Georgia

In Georgia, field sobriety tests are entirely voluntary. There is no statute that requires a driver to submit to field sobriety testing, and no Georgia law imposes any penalty for refusing to perform them. More importantly, the Georgia Supreme Court has held that the right against self-incrimination under Article I, Section I, Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution protects a driver’s refusal to perform field sobriety tests.

The significance of this constitutional protection was clarified when the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s refusal to perform field sobriety tests cannot be disclosed to a jury as evidence of guilt and cannot be used to draw a negative inference against the defendant. Prior to this ruling, prosecutors could—and did—inform juries that the defendant refused to perform the tests, implicitly suggesting that the refusal reflected consciousness of guilt. The Supreme Court’s decision eliminated this prosecutorial tool entirely. A Georgia jury deciding a DUI case will not be told whether the defendant agreed to or declined field sobriety tests.

Why Refusing Field Sobriety Tests Is Generally the Wiser Choice

Given the constitutional protection attached to refusal and the absence of any penalty for declining to perform the tests, the practical question becomes whether there is any advantage to agreeing to perform them. In most circumstances, the answer is no.

Field sobriety tests are administered by officers who have already formed a preliminary suspicion of impairment—that is precisely what motivated the request for the tests. The tests are evaluated by the same officer who stopped the vehicle, not by a neutral third party. NHTSA’s own research acknowledges that the validated tests have error rates: the HGN test correctly identifies impairment in approximately 88 percent of cases under controlled conditions, the Walk-and-Turn in approximately 79 percent, and the One-Leg Stand in approximately 83 percent. These figures mean that a meaningful percentage of sober drivers will exhibit enough test clues to be scored as impaired by an officer applying NHTSA criteria.

Beyond the statistical reliability issues, field sobriety tests are subject to a wide range of non-alcohol factors that can affect performance: age, weight, physical disabilities or injuries, road surface and grade, footwear, lighting conditions, ambient traffic noise, and the inherent stress of being investigated by law enforcement at night on the side of a road. An officer who observes a driver lose balance on the One-Leg Stand may record that observation as a clue of impairment without necessarily accounting for these compounding factors.

When a driver agrees to perform field sobriety tests, they are providing the officer with the opportunity to document observations that will be detailed in the police report, described in the officer’s testimony at trial, and potentially captured on body camera footage that will be played for the jury. Every observation the officer makes becomes part of the State’s evidence. Refusing to perform the tests eliminates this entire category of evidence.

Field Sobriety Tests vs. Chemical Tests: An Important Distinction

Drivers sometimes conflate field sobriety tests with chemical tests—breath, blood, or urine tests administered pursuant to Georgia’s implied consent law. These are entirely different legal categories with different consequences for refusal. Field sobriety tests are voluntary and carry no legal penalty for refusal. Chemical tests, by contrast, are governed by O.C.G.A. § 40-5-67.1, which provides that refusal results in an administrative license suspension of up to one year and that refusal may be disclosed to the jury in a DUI trial.

The strategic analysis of whether to submit to a chemical test is more nuanced than the field sobriety test question and depends heavily on the defendant’s specific circumstances, including their BAC level, the strength of the remaining evidence, and the availability of suppression arguments. This decision, ideally, should be made with the benefit of legal counsel—but because implied consent requests occur at the scene shortly after arrest, drivers rarely have the opportunity to consult an attorney before responding.

How to Decline Field Sobriety Tests Respectfully

Declining to perform field sobriety tests does not require confrontation or hostility. A driver who is asked to perform the tests may simply respond: “I would prefer not to perform any tests.” Alternatively: “I am respectfully declining.” There is no need to explain the reason for declining, and doing so is not required. The refusal should be communicated calmly and clearly, and the driver should not physically resist or argue with the officer. The legal right to refuse is clear; exercising it firmly but respectfully is both appropriate and advisable.

Brett and his team were beyond supportive, helpful, gracious, caring and knowledgeable! We went through the most challenging and difficult time in our life and he was there every step of the way. With results we could never have imagined but definitely prayed for.

Not to mention his level of professionalism. From the first time we spoke to the first time we saw him in court. He stood out from almost every other attorney there. We were so appreciative that our attorney looked and was so professional, pulled together and prepared. When so many others were none of these things.

Thank you just doesn’t seem like enough to convey our feelings and appreciation.

Karen L.

I tried to write this several times and it brought me to tears. First may I say this has been the hardest three years of my life. Five lawyers I interviewed and none even understood the law as it applied to my case. So I thought I would try one more and it was Brett. From our first conversation together I knew he understood the law and was the perfect one for the case. I want to say how he prepared the case and presented it, achieving a full dismissal and ruling the police violated my first amendment rights. Complete genius!!!!

If you're reading this review and unsure, stop...call Brett. He always returned my call or texts within a couple hours, never more than 24 hours. He was always courteous and knowledgeable, trust me he talked me off the ledge a couple times. I would have given him 10 stars but 5 was the only option. Thank you Brett for all you did for me!!!!!