English implied consent warnings okay for non-english speaker
The Supreme Court of Iowa held that advisement of a non-English-speaking defendant of his implied consent warnings in English was sufficient under the circumstances when the defendant “seemed to understand” at the time, even though Miranda was conveyed in Spanish through the use of a Spanish Miranda Card.
The Cite: State v. Garcia, 756 N.W. 2d 216, Iowa Supreme Court, Issued September 19, 2008
Excerpts from the opinion:
Strunk transported Garcia to the Wapello County jail. At approximately 5:10 p.m., Strunk attempted to read Garcia his Miranda rights, and he advised her that he did not understand English. She then gave him a copy of his Miranda rights in Spanish. Garcia signed a form, written in English, which listed his Miranda rights. Strunk then read Garcia the implied consent advisory in English, and she asked him if he understood. Garcia said that he would do what Strunk wanted, “no problem.” Garcia signed the Iowa Department of Transportation “Request and Notice Under Iowa Code Chapter 321J/Section 321.208” form, written in English, which stated in pertinent part that he consented to give a sample of his breath. Garcia submitted to a Datamaster breath test, which registered his BAC at .144. No attempts were made to communicate the implied consent advisory to Garcia in Spanish. Garcia testified that he signed the implied consent advisory “because the official told [him] to sign” and that he understood nothing that was written on the form. At approximately 5:24 p.m., Strunk read Garcia his notice of revocation.The primary issue on appeal is whether Iowa Code section 321J.8 requires a law enforcement officer to make reasonable efforts to convey the implied consent warning to a non-English speaking person.
We turn then to the question of whether, under the circumstances presented to Officer Strunk, she used those methods which would reasonably convey the implied consent warnings to Garcia. Officer Strunk testified that she could understand Garcia and he seemed to understand her. There were numerous conversations between Strunk and Garcia with little apparent difficulty in communicating. Garcia signed the implied consent form, and he did not indicate that he did not understand. It was not until the motion to suppress that his lack of understanding was raised. Applying the “reasonable efforts” standard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that Officer Strunk, under the circumstances facing her at the time of the arrest, utilized reasonable methods to reasonably convey the implied consent warnings to Garcia.
My Comments: Non-English speaking defendants put officers in a particularly tough position. It is easy to claim a lack of English skills to get out of things such as jury duty. Judges see this every day. So it is difficult to sort out who actually doesn’t understand and who is using a selective lack of understanding as their legal defense. People who use a lack of understanding of English as a legal excuse, when they don’t need to, seriously undermine the credibility of those who would actually need this as a legal defense.
Practice Note: Any private attorney with a client who wants to present such a defense should look at their fee agreement and their office interactions with the client. If you, as the lawyer, don’t speak the language the client is claiming he/she needed the advisements to be read in, and if your fee agreement is in English and signed by the client, you may be on ethically shaky grounds in presenting such a defense If you can communicate with the client in English, then be careful about presenting a lack of the client’s English skills as a defense in court. As a practical note, if you go through with representing such a client, no matter how it turns out, you may be on the receiving end of a void for lack of understanding argument about your fee agreement.
http://www.duilawblog.com/admin/trackback/98219
