The police report says you were unsteady.
The officer says you swayed, stepped off the line, missed heel-to-toe, raised your arms for balance, or put your foot down during the one-leg stand.
Then I watch the video.
Sometimes the picture is not nearly as simple as the report makes it sound.
That is why one of the first things I want to review in a Texas DWI case is the available DWI body camera video and dash-camera footage.
A police report contains the officer’s observations and interpretation of what happened. Video can give us another perspective on the roadside encounter—including the instructions, demonstrations, testing conditions, and the person’s actual movements and responses.
Awards & Media Appearances
The Police Report Is the Officer’s Interpretation
Police reports matter. But they are not the same thing as a recording of the event.
An officer may write that someone “failed” the field sobriety tests or showed a particular number of clues.
That conclusion raises more questions for me.
What exactly happened?
Were the instructions given correctly?
Did the person appear to understand them?
Did the officer demonstrate the test?
Was the person actually unable to maintain balance, or was there a single movement the officer counted as a clue?
Were there environmental conditions that affected performance?
And, most importantly, does the video support the written description?
I do not want to evaluate a DWI case from the police report alone when video of the encounter exists.
Why Video Evidence Can Be More Important
Body-camera and dash-camera footage can preserve details that are difficult to understand from a written report.
Video may show how a person exited the vehicle, walked, spoke, responded to questions, followed directions, interacted with the officer, and performed during the roadside investigation.
It may also show the environment.
Was the roadway level?
Was traffic passing nearby?
Was the person standing next to flashing emergency lights?
Was it windy?
Was the surface wet, gravel-covered, sloped, cracked, or uneven?
What shoes was the person wearing?
Those details can matter when the State relies on physical performance as evidence of intoxication.
Video also allows the defense to review what happened before the officer began the standardized field sobriety tests.
What I Look for Before the Field Sobriety Tests Even Begin
My review does not start when the officer pulls out a stimulus for the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test.
I start earlier.
How was the driving?
How did the vehicle stop?
How did my client retrieve a driver’s license or insurance information?
Was there difficulty answering ordinary questions?
How did the person get out of the vehicle?
Did they stumble?
Did they use the door for balance?
How did they walk from the vehicle to the testing location?
Could they communicate normally with the officer?
These observations can provide context.
If a report describes someone as severely impaired but the video shows that person communicating clearly, following directions, retrieving documents, exiting normally, and walking without obvious difficulty, I want to understand that discrepancy.
That does not mean the video automatically disproves intoxication.
It means the entire recording should be evaluated rather than reducing the encounter to a few sentences in a report.
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: What the Camera Can and Cannot Show
The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, commonly called HGN, is one of the three standardized field sobriety tests.
The officer generally observes the person’s eyes while moving a stimulus from side to side and looks for specified clues.
Body-camera video can sometimes help evaluate how the officer administered the test.
I may be able to examine the officer’s positioning, stimulus placement, movement, instructions, timing, and whether something in the environment appears to interfere with the test.
But there is an important limitation.
A body camera may not provide a clear enough view of the person’s eyes to independently determine whether subtle eye movements were present.
Camera angle, distance, darkness, focus, movement, and lighting can all limit what the recording captures.
So the video may be particularly useful for evaluating how the test was administered, even when it cannot clearly show everything the officer says they observed in the person’s eyes.
The Zendeh Del & Associates, PLLC Team
Walk-and-Turn: Instructions Matter
The Walk-and-Turn is a divided-attention test.
The instructions are part of the test.
I want to see what the officer actually told the person to do and what the officer demonstrated before deciding what someone’s performance means.
Did the officer explain the starting position?
Was the person told to remain in that position while listening to the instructions?
Did the officer explain heel-to-toe steps?
Was the turn demonstrated?
Was the person told how many steps to take?
Did the officer make sure the person understood before beginning?
Then I compare those instructions with the alleged clues in the report.
A statement that someone “failed the walk-and-turn” tells me much less than the video of the entire test.
One-Leg Stand: Conditions Matter
The One-Leg Stand requires a person to balance while following specific instructions.
Again, I want to see the entire test.
I look at the person’s actual performance, the officer’s instructions, the demonstration, how long the test lasted, and the conditions under which it occurred.
If someone briefly raises their arms, puts a foot down, or sways, the report may record that observation.
Video gives us the opportunity to see the degree of the movement and the circumstances surrounding it.
There can be a meaningful difference between a written phrase such as “swayed while balancing” and what a viewer actually sees on camera.
Footwear, Surface, Wind, Traffic and Lighting
Field sobriety tests do not happen in a controlled laboratory.
They often happen on the side of a Texas road late at night.
That is why I pay attention to the environment.
High heels, boots, sandals, or other footwear may be relevant to how someone performs a balance test. So can pavement conditions, gravel, roadway slope, weather, wind, nearby traffic, darkness, headlights, and flashing emergency lights.
The point is not that one environmental condition automatically invalidates a test.
The point is that physical performance should be considered in context.
If the State wants to rely on a person’s balance and coordination as evidence, I want the jury to understand the conditions under which that performance occurred.
Case Results
Did the Officer Demonstrate the Test Correctly?
Instructions and demonstrations can be compared directly with video.
That can be important because standardized field sobriety testing is designed around standardized procedures.
I review whether the officer’s demonstration matches what the person was told to do.
I also look for situations where instructions may have been rushed, unclear, interrupted, or inconsistent.
Then I ask a basic question:
Is the State criticizing my client for failing to follow an instruction that was not clearly communicated or demonstrated?
The body-camera recording may provide a much better way to answer that question than the report.
Did the Officer Count Clues Correctly?
A report may list a series of alleged clues.
I do not assume the labels answer the question.
I go back to the recording and examine the underlying conduct.
When did the alleged clue occur?
What did the person actually do?
Does the video clearly show it?
Did the officer count the same conduct more than once?
Was the movement consistent with the instructions?
Was there an environmental reason for it?
Does the report’s description fairly characterize what appears on screen?
This is where detailed video review can become particularly important.
A jury does not necessarily have to rely only on an officer’s description when there is a recording of the event.
They may be able to see relevant portions of the encounter themselves.
What Happens When the Report Conflicts With Video?
A difference between a DWI police report and body-camera footage does not automatically make the case disappear.
But the discrepancy can matter.
If an officer describes severe balance problems and the video appears to show relatively steady movement, that can become an issue for the defense to examine.
If the report says instructions were not followed but the recording suggests the instructions were unclear, that may provide additional context.
If the officer reports a particular action and the available video does not appear to show it, the defense can investigate the inconsistency.
And the review should not be limited to moments that help either side.
Sometimes video supports what the officer wrote. Sometimes it provides context the report does not contain. Sometimes it raises questions about how the officer characterized the encounter.
The important point is that the report should not be the end of the investigation when objective video evidence is available.
Texas DWI cases ultimately concern whether the State can prove intoxication as defined by Texas law. Field sobriety evidence can be one part of that evidentiary picture, alongside driving observations, statements, chemical testing, and other evidence.
That is why I want to see the recording myself.
At Zendeh Del & Associates, PLLC, we examine the details behind a DWI arrest—including body-camera footage, dash-camera video, field sobriety testing, police reports, and chemical-test evidence—rather than treating the officer’s written conclusion as the final word.
If you were arrested for DWI in Galveston or Galveston County and have questions about the video or field sobriety tests in your case, the firm offers free consultations.
This article provides general information about Texas DWI law and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its individual facts, evidence, and circumstances.
Client
Reviews
See what our past clients have to say about us.
These guys are amazing. They made a most horrific experience bearable. They treated me with respect and no judgment. I cannot describe how grateful I am for their representation with my case. 5 stars is not enough. I hope I never need them again but would ABSOLUTELY use them again and definitely recommend them.
— Jennifer S.