In a case decided this week, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that when police officers invoke New Jersey’s implied consent law, and request a breath sample from a motorist they suspect was driving while intoxicated, officers must inform the motorist of the consequences of refusing the test. Further, if the person does not speak English, the statement used to explain those consequences must be given in a language the person speaks or understands.
In State v. German Marquez, police officers responded to the scene of a two-car accident and approached the defendant, German Marquez, who was one of the drivers. Marquez did not respond to requests for identification in English; the officers asked in Spanish and he produced his credentials. The officers noted that he smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and was unstable on his feet. They arrested him, believing he was under the influence. He did not understand requests to perform field sobriety tests.
At the police station, Marquez was read in English the standard implied consent statement, an 11-paragraph document informing drivers that, among other things, cooperating with the test is required by law, and refusing to consent results in license revocation. Marquez shook his head in response, and stated in Spanish that he did not understand. He was charged with driving while intoxicated and with refusing to submit to a breath test.
At the trial court level, he was found guilty of both charges. Marquez appealed his conviction, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The appellate panel noted that there was no requirement that the implied consent statement be translated into another language.
The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed, and reversed the defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test conviction. The Court noted that the New Jersey implied consent statute, which states that any person who operates a motor vehicle on a public road gives their consent to the taking of a breath sample, also requires that a police officer “inform the person” of the consequences of refusing the test. (Iowa has a similar law: 321J.8 “Statement of Officer,” which states that “A person who has been requested to submit to a chemical test shall be advised by a peace officer” of the consequences of refusing the test.)
The Court held that in the context of the implied consent law, the word “inform” means that police officers must convey information in a language the person speaks or understands. If a person does not hear or understand English, some other effort must be made.
New Jersey’s Motor Vehicle Commission has arranged for certified translated versions of the standard implied consent statement to be prepared, in written and audio form, in nine foreign languages. Perhaps Iowa will decide to follow suit?