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
Uncle Was Properly Found to Be a “Person Legally Responsible” for the Abused Child—He Was Therefore a Proper “Respondent” in a Child Abuse/Neglect Proceeding
COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENTIARY STANDARD DEFINED (CT APP).
“No Action” Clause In a Trust Indenture Interpreted Narrowly Under Established Principles of Contract Interpretation—The Clause Did Not Preclude Suit By Securityholders Based Upon Their Common Law and Statutory Rights In an Action Stemming from the “Credit Default Swap” Crisis
Failure to Investigate Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
ACTIONS TAKEN BY A NEW YORK ATTORNEY WHO IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE JUDICIARY LAW 470, WHICH REQUIRES AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK, ARE NOT A NULLITY (CT APP).
THE “SOLE REMEDY REPURCHASE PROTOCOL” IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE REQUIRES NOTICE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFECTIVE LOAN BEFORE THE DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO REPURCHASE IT; OF THE 783 NONCONFORMING LOANS, 480 WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED; THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO REPURCHASE THE UNIDENTIFIED LOANS (CT APP).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF DEFENDANT INVESTMENT BANK’S EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY DEFRAUDED PLAINTIFFS OF $25 MILLION TO COVER THE EMPLOYEE’S LOSSES; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT SUE THE BANK BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BANK CUSTOMERS WAS REJECTED (CT APP).
LEAD AGENCY TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT LEAD DUST AND NOISE CONCERNS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION NEAR A SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY AND, AFTER IMPOSING MITIGATION MEASURES, PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION (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...