• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

N.J. top court rules police must explain DWI test laws in native language

So, you expect cops to speak EVERY language that may be spoken by everyone they pull over?!?!? Absurd...

The fact that you came to this conclusion about my opinion after reading this post is nothing short of hysterical.

Also sad.

No, I'm not expecting that. I'm expecting that we not convict people for refusal when they didn't actually refuse anything.

JlknlKNDFSLMKHUJLSDN.,., ds.,ndpsiupPI$POI#om<Szx >ZMdxadsadfipo8#$

In that garbled mess, I asked you a question. If you fail to answer properly, you will go to prison.

Is this what YOU support?
 
The fact that you came to this conclusion about my opinion after reading this post is nothing short of hysterical.

Also sad.

No, I'm not expecting that. I'm expecting that we not convict people for refusal when they didn't actually refuse anything.

JlknlKNDFSLMKHUJLSDN.,., ds.,ndpsiupPI$POI#om<Szx >ZMdxadsadfipo8#$

In that garbled mess, I asked you a question. If you fail to answer properly, you will go to prison.

Is this what YOU support?

Except that the police were not using a garbled mess, they were speaking English. The driver was obviously doing something that merited suspicion that he was DWI. You can't wait to bring him to the station, call someone who can speak the language, and then get informed consent. By then, the usefulness of the test has expired.
 
I don't necessarily disagree with the notion behind this ruling in regards to needing to be able to understand what is being asked of you under the law.

At the same time, my issue is it never should've GOTTEN to that point.

The fact this individual recieved a drivers liscenses by successfully taking the test in Spanish is the problem.

Our road signs are in English, not Spanish. The VAST majority of our police force dealing with traffic violations speak English, not spanish. The vast majority of traffic warnings, both temporary signs and radio, is in English. It should not be OPTIONAL to understand English and drive.

This situation actually highlights to me once again why we NEED a national language, if nothing else for any government document that requires one to be a citizen. Want to register to vote, you need to do it in English. Want to apply for welfare, you need to do it in English. Want a drivers liscense, you need to do it in English. Not only will this save money by not requiring hundreds of forms to be printed off in dozens of languages but it also assures a common language among the citizenry which is essentially for the longevity of a country.

If individual businesses want to offer foriegn language options more power to them, they definitely should. But the government should be opperating in cases where its dealing with citizens specifically in English and it should be our 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.

Making English the official language in the US wouldn't change anything. Those without savvy aren't going to all of a sudden start speaking in English tongues.
 
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...

People don't weave and cause accidents at .09 BAC. Chances are they will be above .12, which will still be over .08 two hours later.
 
@ Mr. Vicchio -- I agree with the court's decision.

@ Ryrinea -- One doesn't have to have a national language to think it ought to be a requirement that people at least read English before they drive. That's not a Conservative bent. That's just good old common sense.

gotta disagree.....people need to WORK, and sometimes that involves driving.
 
And why did this person even HAVE a NJ DL? Why because he was allowed to take the test in...


NorthJersey.com: N.J. top court rules police must explain DWI test laws in native language


























The TEST SHOULD BE IN ENGLISH. That way the Police, if they need to stop you, can communicate with you. End of Story.

agree with you it's a bad ruling, disagree that the test should be in english. the article states the the prosecutor argued that the defendant gave implied consent when he took that test and was informed of the law.
 
@ LibLady -- I agree that it's a hardship. Personally, when I'm on the road, I'd like to think that the drivers around me can read the same road sign/instructions that I can. "Bridge Out" comes to mind. ;-) I personally would not drive in a non-English-speaking country for that very reason.

I also think it's more than an inconvenience not to be able to speak the language of the country one is living in. It can be dangerous. Depending on the country.
 
gotta disagree.....people need to WORK, and sometimes that involves driving.

Then if he is driving on the roads he should be able to read the words on the permanent and temporary traffic signs, comprehend an officer or a telecast if they're giving him information or direction, and respond to officers if asked a question.

Driving is not a right, no one is garaunteed the ability to drive regardless if its to "work" or not. You should absolutely have to pass the test in English when everything that revolves around our commute...from the traffic symbols to the interaction with those enforcing its laws...functions in English.
 
So in NJ, you can plea bargain Murder but not DUI, but if you can't speak the language, you can get it thrown out?


Ridiculous.
 
Then if he is driving on the roads he should be able to read the words on the permanent and temporary traffic signs, comprehend an officer or a telecast if they're giving him information or direction, and respond to officers if asked a question.

Driving is not a right, no one is garaunteed the ability to drive regardless if its to "work" or not. You should absolutely have to pass the test in English when everything that revolves around our commute...from the traffic symbols to the interaction with those enforcing its laws...functions in English.

it's highly possible that he understands traffic signs. that's not so difficult, and it's why so many of them are now symbols. i don't have an issue with him driving, (sober) in fact, i would probably rather have an adult latino with limited english skills driving than a teenager.
 
COntradicts:

Read that again and maybe you'll see how "conviction for refusing to take an alcohol breath test" and "conviction for the driving while intoxicated" are two different convictions? Go ahead, take your time.
 
Read that again and maybe you'll see how "conviction for refusing to take an alcohol breath test" and "conviction for the driving while intoxicated" are two different convictions? Go ahead, take your time.



I live in jersey. "Refusal" carries the same penalties or more and is considered a DUI conviction. You can be charged with both, its usually however one or the other. If he refuses and they throw out the case, as stated in the op, then they can't go back and charge with DUI as there is no evidence of DUI unless he was charged with DUI and had witnesses etc. which is very very rare because the conviction rate is next to nill in that scenario.


If the article says he was convicted of a DUI, but had a refusal thrown out, it's not accurate or it's missing key information.
 
Last edited:
I live in jersey. "Refusal" carries the same penalties or more and is considered a DUI conviction. You can be charged with both, its usually however one or the other. If he refuses and they throw out the case, as stated in the op, then they can't go back and charge with DUI as there is no evidence of DUI unless he was charged with DUI and had witnesses etc. which is very very rare because the conviction rate is next to nill in that scenario.


If the article says he was convicted of a DUI, but had a refusal thrown out, it's not accurate or it's missing key information.

it clearly says the conviction was upheld, rev, and:

As a result, he was charged with driving while intoxicated and refusing to take a breath test.
 
Last edited:
it clearly says the conviction was upheld, rev,




I see that. knowing NJ though, there is more to this story. I'm telling you, if one gets a refusal it carries the same penalties as a DUI, and one usually does not get convicted or even charged with both.
 
I don't know why there has to be more to the story. He was charged on both counts. Found guilty of both; the higher court upheld the DUI (he admitted to taking Percosets for pain) and threw out the conviction on refusing to take a breathalizer. That makes perfect sense to me if the guy couldn't understand English. He didn't refuse. He just didn't understand.

In Illinois, I think one would often be charged with both. The conviction/penalty for not taking a breathalizer is completely independent as to whether a person is drunk or not. Automatic six-month suspension for the refusal. Also in Illinois, one certainly does not have to take a breathalizer to be convicted of DUI. The officer's field sobriety tests are enough. No witnesses needed.
 
I don't know why there has to be more to the story. He was charged on both counts. Found guilty of both; the higher court upheld the DUI (he admitted to taking Percosets for pain) and threw out the conviction on refusing to take a breathalizer. That makes perfect sense to me if the guy couldn't understand English. He didn't refuse. He just didn't understand.

In Illinois, I think one would often be charged with both. The conviction/penalty for not taking a breathalizer is completely independent as to whether a person is drunk or not. Automatic six-month suspension for the refusal. Also in Illinois, one certainly does not have to take a breathalizer to be convicted of DUI. The officer's field sobriety tests are enough. No witnesses needed.




I'm just sayin... This dood must have been polluted to get charged with both....
 
Back
Top Bottom