People v. Niedzwiecki

• Court: New York City Court
• Writing for the Court: PHYLLIS ORLIKOFF FLUG
• Citation: People v. Niedzwiecki, 127 Misc.2d 919, 487 N.Y.S.2d 694 (N.Y. City Ct. 1985)
• Decision Date: 25 March 1985
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Janusz NIEDZWIECKI, Defendant.

Page 694

487 N.Y.S.2d 694

127 Misc.2d 919

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Janusz NIEDZWIECKI, Defendant.

Criminal Court of the City of New York Queens County.

March 25, 1985.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Queens County by Michael Cohen, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.

Caesar Cirigliano, Kew Gardens by Donald Strayhorn, Jamaica, for defendant.

PHYLLIS ORLIKOFF FLUG, Judge:

As the inherent dangers posed by drunken motorists on New York's highways grow greater and attracts more media attention, it is clear that persons who drink and drive will no longer be tolerated. The legislature, reflecting the outcry for greater safety on our roads, has increased the minimum drinking age and enacted stiffer penalties for those convicted of driving while intoxicated. Accompanying these measures has been a more rigid enforcement of the Vehicle and Traffic Law by law enforcement personnel.

Amidst this heightened awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving, this Court is now called to rule in a case of apparent first impression regarding procedures police follow when requesting drivers to submit to breathalyzer exams.

The defendant is a Polish immigrant whose difficulty with the English language has resulted in a motion to suppress his "refusal" to submit to a breathalyzer test.

On January 28, 1983, police stopped the defendant after observing him operate a vehicle without headlights in a weaving pattern. Although defendant had a strong foreign accent, the officer proceeded to read him his "Miranda" rights in English. Later, at the highway unit, the defendant was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. Here, for the first time, he requested the assistance of a Polish "translocator." The nature of defendant's request and the accompanying police conduct crystalized the problem.

The defendant had only been in this country for a year and a half and had a limited understanding of English gathered during three months of evening study at high school. His friends and relatives insulated his needs and abilities and the extensive, well organized Polish community facilitated his continued use of his native tongue.

Therefore, when first approached by police, the defendant was able to respond to their questions regarding his rights. However, when confronted with the language of V.T.L. Section 1194, he requested assistance from a translator.

The law mandates that when police request a defendant to submit to a breathalyzer test, it must be in "clear and unequivocal" language that advises a person both of his rights and the consequences of his refusal. Only if police adhere to these guidelines may a defendant's refusal to submit to testing be introduced into evidence against him (V.T.L. Section 1194(2), (4)).

Police implement this legislative mandate by a verbatim recital of V.T.L. Section 1194(2). This statute is couched in terms familiar to most law enforcement officials, legislators, prosecutors, attorneys and judges. However, this Court believes that the choices and ramifications flowing therefrom were by no means clearly understandable to the defendant,...