- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
TRENTON — Police in New Jersey must explain the state's implied consent law to motorists in a language that they understand, the state Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
In a 4-3 decision, the court overturned a conviction for refusing to take an alcohol breath test because the man, who spoke only Spanish, did not understand the consequences.
The court found that a Plainfield police officer failed to inform German Marquez, who is from El Salvador, in Spanish that he would automatically lose his driver's license for seven months if he refused the test.
Police had responded to a two-car accident in 2007. The officer initially asked in English for Marquez to show his license. When the officer repeated the request in Spanish, Marquez complied.
NorthJersey.com: N.J. top court rules police must explain DWI test laws in native languageMarquez said he didn't understand what police were reading to him and that he had taken his driver's license exam in Spanish.
Dude we are a society of many different languages not every one off the boat understands English, so in other words piss off we aren't going to have a national language. Is it so hard for conservatives to understand this?
One of the requirements for U.S. citizenship through naturalization is to take the naturalization test to demonstrate that you are able to read, write, and speak basic English and that you have a basic knowledge of U.S. history and government (also known as “civics”).
First off the word basic comes to mind there. I don't think you can explain a DWI with just basic English as is probably implied by that law. Also, just because you must speak it does not make it our national language. In Japan you are required to be able to speak English, but that doesn't make English their national language.
First off the word basic comes to mind there. I don't think you can explain a DWI with just basic English as is probably implied by that law. Also, just because you must speak it does not make it our national language. In Japan you are required to be able to speak English, but that doesn't make English their national language.
First off the word basic comes to mind there. I don't think you can explain a DWI with just basic English as is probably implied by that law. Also, just because you must speak it does not make it our national language. In Japan you are required to be able to speak English, but that doesn't make English their national language.
So, foreigners are expecting us to learn their language, but refuse to learn ours. Supplying them with a translator all the time? lmao
Everyday that goes by that congress doesn't make english the official language- the farther down the slippery slope this country slides.
Dude we are a society of many different languages not every one off the boat understands English, so in other words piss off we aren't going to have a national language. Is it so hard for conservatives to understand this?
First off the word basic comes to mind there. I don't think you can explain a DWI with just basic English as is probably implied by that law. Also, just because you must speak it does not make it our national language. In Japan you are required to be able to speak English, but that doesn't make English their national language.
English language skills in Japan are awful. I speak better Japanese than most Japanese speak English...
I think the court's decision was correct. Not because of the national language/not national language deal, but because convicting someone for "refusal" to take the test is stupid when they aren't aware you're asking them to take it. If a cop asks you a question in sign language, you shouldn't go to jail for not answering.
So piss off about us not having a national language.... we do, and it's mandated by federal law. :roll:
So, you expect cops to speak EVERY language that may be spoken by everyone they pull over?!?!? Absurd...
It'd be a simple matter of bringing them to the station and contacting their embassy who will be able to tell them what's going on.
What is more absurd is arresting people simply because they cannot comprehend what is being asked of them. It's a crappy situation but that's reality. Not everyone can speak the common tongue and the system needs to adapt, especially if we are still letting immigrants into our country for economic reasons.
EDIT: In Canada there are two official languages but the system still offers many translations of documents and services in other languages. Immigrants tend to reside in or near urban centres so it's not a stretch of resources to find someone who speaks their language.
We are talking about a DWI test. YOu take them to the station, contact their embassy/consulate (which may not be staffed at the particular point in time we are talking about) all in the meantime, the suspect is sobering up. DWI tests are time sensititive. The longer you wait, the more you lose the usefulness of the test.
No, in this case, the immigrants need to adapt.
We are not talking about documents, we are talking about a time sensitive test.
All embassies have emergency lines that are 24/7. It's not hard to get help. I've used them and so have many people I've traveled with. It's their job to be available all the time. Most people immigrating to the U.S. ostensibly have this information.
I agree with the court ruling. If the person cannot understand the test due to a language barrier then that should not imply their guilt.
A test that could turn ugly if the person doesn't understand what is happening, especially if the cop tries to proceed anyway.
The rights of the individual are paramount, especially when dealing with police. If the cops can't convey the situation to the person then they need to get someone on the line who can.
So, let's see... You take the guy who CLAIMS not to speak English to the station, call the embassy/consulate, get a hold of someone who can explain the situation to the perp, who then can give informed concent. Let's say an hour has passed in the meantime. Do you think the DWI test will show the same reading as it would have if the driver were administered at the time he was seen weaving on the road? Answer this honestly.
It isn't about guilt. It is about administering a test in a timely fashion to see if someone is indeed violating sobriety laws or not.
In this case, public safety trumps. Administering a sobriety test on the road violates no rights. Driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege. You abuse it, you lose it. You DWI, then you lose it. Take him to the station, notify the embassy/consulate and he registers a .07 instead of a .09... that is wrong...
So does this mean every cop must be bi-lingual? My personal opinion is that everything be conducted in English, but because New Jersey allows Spanish Driver's tests, they should also accommodate Spanish speaking drivers when they are pulled over. I would say having a Spanish recording that explains the consequences or having a Spanish text they can read should suffice.
This is not limited to Spanish. What about Russian? Mandarin Chinese? Vietnamese? Etc. this could get rediculous...
My honest answer would be that, in light of the court ruling, the justice department will have to somehow implement an efficient system for solving this problem, and the details of that are beyond my knowledge because it's not my expertise. Where there's a will, there's a way, and I sincerely doubt it would take a long time to accomplish.
It is precisely about guilt, given that the man in the OP had his license removed for seven months, all because the root of the problem was that he didn't understand what was going on.
You can't force someone to take the test which is why the automatic revoking law exists, but in this case he didn't understand what was being asked of him and so there needs to be an alternative procedure in place for such circumstances.
This entire case is about the system seeing an obvious flaw and adapting to change it for future reference.
Again, you can't force someone to take the test. That would be unconstitutional. Your claim about public safety is bunk given that refusal means you are taken off the road anyway. The guy had his licensed revoked. Once again - in case it's not clear - I will say that this is about a particular type of incident not covered by standard procedure, so the system needs to examine it and make a modification, as it always does when something new happens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?