Chicago DUI attorney thinks the government doesn't want you to understand the law

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here and here about Statutory Summary Suspensions.  This suspension occurs simply for being arrested for a DUI.  It occurs if you submit to chemical testing and the results are over the legal limit of .08 or if you refuse to submit to chemical testing.

In Illinois, the arresting officer is required to read to the accused a statement that spells out the possible penalties and consequences for submitting to the testing or refusing the tests.  Can you believe that they are only required to read these Warnings to Motorist; it’s not required that the Motorist actually hear these Warnings or understand them.

Some states are now challenging whether that should be the case,

From usatoday.com:

When German Marquez, was charged with driving while impaired by Plainfield, N.J., police in 2007, he was read a statement in English warning him of the penalties he faced if he did not submit to a breath test.

Marquez, who speaks Spanish, but not English, says he did not understand and did not take the test. In addition to a driving while impaired charge, he was charged with failure to take a breath test.

In a case pending before the state Supreme Court, Marquez's attorney, Michael Blacker, is asking for that conviction to be overturned and for the court to mandate translations of the statement about the breath test, which state law requires to be read before it is administered. A decision is scheduled to be released today. "If the statement were translated it would level the playing field equal to English speakers," Blacker says.

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

In most states, drivers are deemed as having given implied consent to a breath test as a condition of being on the road, and are reminded when stopped by police that refusing to do so can result in penalties as severe as those for impaired driving, Blacker says.

However, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, believes the lack of a translation policy means non-English speakers are being held to a "higher standard" of remembering what's in the driver's manual. The ACLU, in a statement, likens it to the importance of translating Miranda rights and court proceedings, which the state's courts do provide.

State approaches to the breath-test consent, Mandel says, typically fall into one of two categories:

• 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: Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. Definitions of "reasonable" have varied depending on the judge and the facts of each case, but several rulings have focused on an officer making a good faith attempt to convey the warning, Mandel says.

• Five other states — Georgia, Illinois, Oregon, Ohio and Minnesota — 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.

New Jersey's brief in the Marquez case also argues that it is impractical, when time is of the essence in testing for sobriety, to ascertain which foreign language the driver speaks and obtain translation, says Peter Asselstine, spokesman for New Jersey's Attorney General's office.

Since April, New Jersey has provided police with a website where the statement is provided in both audio and written form in the 10 foreign languages widely spoken in the state. Asselstine says use of the site is not required. State Police have used it, said spokesman Detective Brian Polite, but have not kept statistics about how often. The police wait until they return to headquarters to use the website, and then administer the breath test, Polite says.

 Anyone else think it’s odd that we wouldn’t want folks to understand what could happen to them in criminal proceedings?