NJ DWI Court and Geno’s Steaks say “English Only”…
Jul 2nd, 2009 | By Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. | Category: Blogs, Criminal & Traffic
Yesterday, in State v. Marquez, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that English is the only language applicable to a drunk driving refusal charge.
A NJ DWI suspect who claimed that he spoke only Spanish contested his NJ DWI refusal case in court claiming that he did not understand the police officer reading the “refusal warnings” in English.
New Jersey like Pennsylvania is an “informed consent” law state. This means that when you drive on a road, you consent to having your Blood Alcohol Content (B.A.C.) tested.
When a NJ police officer suspects and arrests someone for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) the officer must read specific warning language to the DWI suspect. If the NJ DWI suspect does not respond with an “unequivocal, affirmative consent” the police officer can deem the NJ DWI suspect’s actions or inaction a refusal to take B.A.C. test which will result in a separate DWI Refusal charge.
The NJ Appellate Division ruled that understanding the “refusal warnings” was not part of the statute and that it would place too much of a burden on local police officers.
The court ruled against the Defendant reasoning that because a DWI investigation is a very time sensitive it would be impossible to have a local police officer understand and translate a multitude of foreign languages.
Do you think this is fair to the DWI suspect? Should the English language rule like at Geno’s Steaks in South Philly?
Yes English should be understood by all people who are driving automobiles on the road. Last time I checked arent all of the signs in English??? I dont know why they have a spanish test for people who are getting their license anyway. I havent seen any traffic signs in spanish in my travels in America. Learn the language and adapt to us. This whole country is going to crap because we curtail everything to accomodate the 10,000,000 ethnicities of people coming here. English is our Language, LEARN IT OR LEAVE! The judge was right, thats no excuse. Good post Mr. Saile
IF THE STATEMENT THEY ARE SUPOSE TO READ IS MEANINGLESS, IT SHOULD NOT BE READ AT ALL. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CASES , HUNDREDS, THAT HAVE GONE UP ON APPEAL BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS WITH THE STATEMENT OR HOW IT WAS USED, OR UPDATING IT, ETC…….
HERE THE COURT IS SIMPLY SAYING IT IS A BUNCH OF CRAP AND DOESNT NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD. READING IT IN JIBBERISH TO A PERSON IS AS GOOD AS NOT READING IT AT ALL.
THEREFORE, THE POLICE SHOULD NOT READ THGIS STATEMENT.
WHY SHOULD I , AS AN ENGLISH SPEAKING US CITIZEN BE FORCED TO UNDERSTAND STATEMENTS OTHERS WITH DRIVERS LICENSES DO NOT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND.
PUT AN END TO THE STATEMENT PERIOD.
WELL, THECOURT SAID THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DID NOT RULE, …. SO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION ON ITS FACE.
THE COURTS SAID IT DIDNT MATTER WHAT TE LANGUAGE WAS, CORRECT, ….
A BETTER , BUT NO GOOD ARFGUEMENT, .L. WOULD BE CAN A DRUNKEN PERSON WHO SPEAKS ENGLISH, BLIND DRUNK, UNDERSTAND SOMEONE TALKING TO THEM?
THE FACT IS IN ORDER TO PASS THE WRITTEN DRIVERS TEST, .. THIS MUST BE A PASSABLE QWUESTYION,..
I WOULD WANT ANYONE GETTING A DRIVERS LICENSE TO SIGN OFF ON THE THAT IF THE REFUSE A BLOOD ACHOL BREATH TEEST, IT WOULD BE THWE SAME AS A DUI,. ( NOTE NOT A BLOD TEST, BECUASE STICKING SOMEONE WITH A NEDDLE MAY BE A TORT).
OK,…
MAYBE THE GUY DSIDNT KNOW,.. AND MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHY HE DIDNT KNOW
ALL DRIVERS GETTING THEIR LICENSES SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED THEY WERE APRAISED AND UNDERSTOOF THEY CAN NOT REFUSE A BREATH TEST.
JIM