New Jersey assesses DUI/DWI-test consents

As result of a two-car accident/ DWI case appealed to that level, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, last February, considered a case "challenging the conviction of a non-English speaking driver for refusing to submit to an alcohol breath test -- the Court analyzing the interplay between the state's implied consent law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2, and its refusal law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, to determine whether the statutes require law enforcement officials to inform motorists of the consequences of refusing to consent in a language that the driver speaks or understands."

That resolution was came back this morning, the New Jersey Court holding that "…The statement used to explain to motorists the consequences of refusal must be given in a language the person speaks or understands. Because defendant was advised of these consequences in English, and there is no dispute that he did not understand English, his refusal conviction is
reversed." [ See State v. German Marquez, A-35-09 ]

The language issue is one states have grappled with on similar cases for years, with none requiring translations of these statements for non-English speakers, Jeffrey Mandel, who filed a brief in support of the Marquez case for the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, told USAToday.

"At least seven states call for 'reasonable' efforts to be made by police to have those facing prosecution understand the consequences of refusing the test," that article said, definitions of 'reasonable' having varied, however, depending on the judge and the facts of each case, and several rulings having focused on an officer making a good faith attempt to convey the warning. Another five states – Ohio included -- follow the view of New Jersey's Democratic Attorney General Paula Dow that the law requires the statement be read, not that drivers must understand it.