The alphabet, counting, finger-count, and finger-to-nose exercises are not part of the standardized field sobriety test battery. An officer may use them and may testify about them in Montana, but they come without the scoring system and validation studies that the three standardized tests have, and that affects how much weight they deserve. This page explains where each one comes from and how Montana courts can treat them. It is part of our Montana DUI Guide.
Standardized Versus Everything Else
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) training manual explains how the standardized battery was chosen. Beginning in late 1975, NHTSA sponsored research to find which roadside tests were most accurate. Researchers started with six: the one-leg stand, finger-to-nose, finger count, walk-and-turn, tracing (a paper and pencil exercise), and nystagmus.
According to the manual, the laboratory research indicated that three of them, given in a standardized manner, were the most accurate: horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn, and the one-leg stand. The remaining tests "were merely reassessing the same skills." Finger-to-nose and finger count were studied and left out.
The manual does not dismiss other tests entirely. It says "while many field sobriety tests are valid tests, the SFSTs have been validated through numerous research studies."
The Tests You May Be Asked to Do
| Test | What you are asked to do | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Alphabet | Recite part of the alphabet, starting at a letter other than A and stopping at a letter other than Z | NHTSA pre-exit technique. "Not scientifically validated by NHTSA" |
| Count down | Count out loud backward through 15 or more numbers, for example from 68 to 53 | NHTSA pre-exit technique. Not validated |
| Finger count | Touch the thumb to each fingertip while counting one to four, then reverse | NHTSA pre-exit technique. Not validated. One of six tests in the original 1970s research, not selected for the battery |
| Finger to nose | A coordination exercise named in the original research and in the drug evaluation protocol | One of six tests in the original research, not selected for the battery. Used in the drug recognition expert evaluation |
| Modified Romberg balance | A balance test given as part of a drug evaluation | Used in the drug recognition expert evaluation, not in the roadside battery |
The manual gives specific guidance on the first three. For the count-down, it says the technique "should never be given using starting and stopping points ending in 0 or 5 because these numbers are too easy to recall." For all three, the instruction to the officer is simply to "note whether and how well the driver is able to perform the divided attention task."
The last two rows belong to a different setting. The International Association of Chiefs of Police lists the Modified Romberg Balance and the Finger to Nose test, together with the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand, as the psychophysical tests in step five of a drug recognition expert evaluation. That evaluation is normally done after an arrest, not at the roadside.
What They Lack: Clues and a Decision Point
Each standardized test comes with a defined list of clues and a number at which the officer is trained to draw a conclusion. The walk-and-turn has eight clues and a decision point of two. The one-leg stand has four and a decision point of two. The eye test has six and a decision point of four.
The manual provides nothing comparable for the alphabet, count-down, or finger count. There is no list of what counts as an error, no number of errors that matters, and no accuracy figure. An officer's conclusion that a driver "failed" one of these is the officer's own judgment. That does not make the observation meaningless. It means the observation is closer to slurred speech or fumbling for a license than to a scored test.
How Montana Law Treats Them
Montana's DUI evidence statute is permissive. After setting conditions for chemical tests and for reports of physical, psychomotor, or physiological assessments, it says the provisions of the DUI part "do not limit the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing on the question of whether the person was under the influence" (MCA § 61-8-1018(3)). An officer's account of a non-standard exercise fits there.
A report of an assessment is admissible if it was made by a person trained by the Department of Justice or with training the Department recognizes (MCA § 61-8-1018(1)(c)). The statute does not distinguish between standardized and non-standardized tests, and we did not find a Montana Supreme Court decision that sets a separate admissibility rule for the alphabet or counting tests.
One case frames the edges. In Hulse v. State, 1998 MT 108, the Court held that field sobriety tests are a search and may be given on particularized suspicion (¶ 38), and it required expert foundation for the eye test because its scientific basis is beyond ordinary understanding (¶ 69). An alphabet or counting exercise does not rest on science of that kind. A juror can judge for themselves what it means that a tired, frightened person lost their place.
Arguments About Weight
Because these tests are judged by common sense, the questions about them are practical:
- What exactly was asked? A request that departs from the manual, such as reciting the whole alphabet backward, is not a trained technique.
- How was it explained? Unclear or rushed instructions produce errors that have nothing to do with alcohol.
- What does the video show? Reports often summarize a result in a word. The recording shows what was actually said.
- Is there an innocent explanation? Hearing, language, education, learning differences, nerves, and fatigue all bear on reciting and counting tasks.
- Why were the standardized tests not used, or used as well? If the officer skipped a standardized test, the reason should be in the report.
The manual's own standard is a useful measuring stick. A fair divided attention test must be "reasonably simple for the average person to complete as instructed when sober."
Why They Still Matter in a Case
Non-standard tests can add to the total an officer relies on for probable cause, and in an impairment case with no test number they may be part of what the State presents at trial. They also show up in drug cases, where the statute requires other competent evidence beyond a positive drug test (MCA § 61-8-1018(1)(a)).
Sorting the standardized tests from the others is one of the first things a review does. Our field sobriety tests page covers the battery, and challenging field sobriety tests explains how each kind is contested.
This page describes NHTSA's published training materials (2023 curriculum) and explains Montana law in general as of October 9, 2026. It is not legal advice about your specific case.