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?
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.
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...
@ 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.
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.
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.
Marquez's conviction for the driving while intoxicated charge was upheld.
um, no, from the article:
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.
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.
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,
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.
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?