You are here: / / NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A...

NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissent, determined the failure to administer coordination tests in a DWI case because of a “language barrier,” did not violate equal protection or due process. In this case the defendant was of Hispanic origin and spoke Spanish. The requirement that the tests be administered in English was deemed facially neutral and not directed at a suspect class, and the state was deemed to have a substantial interest in avoiding the cumbersome requirement that an arresting officer administer the tests in the arrestee’s language:

The challenged policy withstands rational basis review. Both the NYPD and the public have a substantial interest in ensuring the reliability of coordination tests, and the clarity of the instructions is crucial to the reliability of the results. Indeed, the record makes clear that coordination tests are designed not only to assess a suspect’s “motor skills in completing the specific tasks,” but also to evaluate the suspect’s “capacity to [] follow instructions.” But coordination tests are uniquely ill-suited for administration via translation; they are generally lengthy — containing thirty lines of instructions — and require contemporaneous demonstration and explanation of the tasks to be performed. * * *

… [T]he implicated State interests are substantial. The State has a clear interest in avoiding the cumbersome and prohibitively expensive administrative and fiscal burdens of providing the requested translation services. The State also has a strong interest in ensuring the accuracy of physical coordination tests, and the use of translated instructions — either through qualified interpreters or through multilingual officers — could compromise the test’s reliability. Given the substantial State interests involved, defendant’s due process claim must be rejected … . People v Aviles, 2016 NY Slip Op 07836, CtApp 11-22-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS)/DWI (NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS)/EQUAL PROTECTION (NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS)/DUE PROCESS (NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS)

You might also like
PROSECUTOR’S CHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT IMPROPER, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
A LIENHOLDER NONPARTY TO AN ACTION THAT RESULTED IN A FEE AWARD TO A DEBTOR MAY SUE TO RECOVER THOSE FEES WHERE THE LIENHOLDER WAS NEITHER JOINED NOR REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THAT ACTION (CT APP).
Hearing Required to Determine If Criminal Investigation of Defense Counsel Affected the Conduct of the Defense (Re: CPL 440.10 Motion to Vacate the Conviction)
DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PURSUED AND DETAINED BASED UPON HIS DRINKING FROM A CONTAINER IN A PAPER BAG AND RUNNING INSIDE A NEARBY BUILDING; THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD WAS PROPERLY INFERRED FROM DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF BOTH REAL AND COUNTERFEIT BILLS, KEPT SEPARATELY ON HIS PERSON (CT APP).
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH STRIKING A SMALL DOG WITH A BROOM HANDLE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE “CHOICE OF EVILS” INSTRUCTION TO THE GRAND JURY; DEFENDANT ARGUED HE STRUCK THE DOG TO PREVENT A “GREATER EVIL,” I.E., AN INFECTION FROM A BITE; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT BECAUSE DEFENDANT TESTIFIED STRIKING THE DOG WAS AN ACCIDENT (CT APP).
THE ENABLING ACT WHICH TASKED A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE WITH DECIDING WHETHER THE SALARIES OF LEGISLATORS AND STATE OFFICIALS SHOULD BE INCREASED IS CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).
ARGUING FOR LENIENCY IN SENTENCING DOES NOT PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SENTENCING WAS VINDICTIVE (CT APP).
SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TRANSPORT CHILDREN TO THEIR PRIVATE SCHOOLS WHEN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE CLOSED (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS... CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL, TELLING DEFENDANT...