Vazquez-Santiago v. Department of Transportation , Bureau of Driver Licensing
| Decision Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 453 C.D. 2020 |
| Citation | 268 A.3d 16 |
| Parties | Isak VAZQUEZ-SANTIAGO v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Terrance M. Edwards, Senior Counsel, Harrisburg, for Appellant.
John T. Fegley, Wyomissing, for Appellee.
BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge,1 HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge2
OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Bureau) appeals from the April 6, 2020 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County (trial court), which sustained Isak Vazquez-Santiago's (Licensee) appeal of the suspension of his driving privileges. In this case, Licensee was stopped and was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). He was asked to submit to a blood test to determine his blood alcohol concentration, and he allegedly refused, resulting in the suspension of his operating privilege under section 1547(b)(1)(i) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1)(i),3 commonly referred to as the "Implied Consent Law." The question presented in this appeal is whether Licensee's lack of understanding of the English language prevented him from making a knowing and conscious refusal of a chemical blood test because he could not understand the consequences of a refusal. Because we so conclude, we affirm the trial court's order.
Background
As related by the trial court, the pertinent facts are as follows. On June 24, 2019, at approximately 1:58 a.m., Harrisburg City Police Officer Carson O'Connor was on patrol in the area of Second and Maclay Streets in the City of Harrisburg. (Trial Ct. Op. at 2.) He observed a Toyota sedan cross a double yellow line, make a righthand turn without signaling, drive across the center lane, and veer into another lane without signaling. Id . Following these observations, Officer O'Connor initiated a traffic stop. Officer O'Connor approached the driver, who later was identified as Licensee.
Licensee is Spanish-speaking, and Officer O'Connor does not speak Spanish. Thus, throughout their interaction, Licensee was unable to understand many of Officer O'Connor’s questions and directions. Officer O'Connor asked Licensee to lower his window, but because Licensee had difficulty doing so, he opened the driver's-side car door instead. Id. When Licensee opened the door, Officer O'Connor detected an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle, and observed that Licensee's eyes were glazed and bloodshot. Id. Officer O'Connor then closed the door and, using a combination of verbal commands and hand signals, requested that Licensee roll down his window. Id. at 2-3. Licensee eventually understood Officer O'Connor’s request, rolled down the window, and provided Officer O'Connor with his driver's license and vehicle registration. Id. at 3.
Officer O'Connor returned to his patrol car to check for outstanding warrants and to wait for additional officers to arrive. Id. When he returned to Licensee's vehicle, he observed that Licensee was asleep in the driver's seat. Id. Officer O'Connor roused Licensee and asked him how much he had had to drink that night. Id. Licensee was unable to understand the officer's inquiry spoken in English, so Officer O'Connor used hand signals to communicate the question. Id. Ultimately, Licensee appeared to understand the inquiry and indicated that he had consumed three alcoholic beverages. Id . At Officer O'Connor’s request, Licensee stepped out of the vehicle, and Officer O'Connor detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from Licensee's person. Id. Officer O'Connor attempted to conduct a field sobriety test, but Licensee was unable to understand the officer's directions, so no sobriety tests were performed. Id. Based upon his observations, Officer O'Connor placed Licensee under arrest on suspicion of DUI.
Due to their language barrier, Officer O'Connor placed a police radio call requesting the assistance of any available Spanish-speaking officer to assist him, but he was unable to locate such an officer. Id. at 3-4. Officer O'Connor then drove Licensee to the Dauphin County Booking Center, where he requested that Licensee submit to a chemical test of his blood. Id. at 4. To explain his request, Officer O'Connor had to use various hand signals, such as pointing to his arm. Id. Based on these hand signals, it appeared to Officer O'Connor that Licensee understood that the officer was asking him to undergo a blood draw. Id. Officer O'Connor proceeded to read to Licensee, in English, the warnings required by the Implied Consent Law4 and our Supreme Court's decision in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O'Connell , 521 Pa. 242, 555 A.2d 873 (1989) ( O'Connell warnings),5 which are listed on the Department of Transportation DL-26B Form.6 Officer O'Connor read the DL-26B Form exactly as it was printed in English, and he used no visual aids or hand signals, as he had during earlier attempts to communicate with Licensee. Id. As the trial court stated, Officer O'Connor’s "reading of the DL-26B form in English is the gravamen of this case." Id. (emphasis in original).
After reading the form to Licensee, Officer O'Connor asked Licensee whether he would submit to a blood test, and Licensee answered "No." Id. Licensee also refused to sign the portion of the form that asks the motorist to acknowledge that he had been advised of the warnings contained thereon. Id. at 4-5. Officer O'Connor construed Licensee's conduct as a refusal to submit to testing. However, at the hearing on Licensee's appeal, Officer O'Connor acknowledged that he was unsure as to whether Licensee understood what was being asked of him, and he was uncertain as to whether Licensee understood the consequences of his refusal to take the test. Id. at 5. The trial court emphasized the following exchange between Officer O'Connor and Licensee's counsel:
Id. at 5-6 (quoting Notes of Testimony, 11/25/2019 (N.T.), at 17) (emphasis in original).
Licensee testified on his own behalf at the hearing. He testified entirely in Spanish with the assistance of an interpreter. Id. at 6 n.2. Licensee explained that he is from Puerto Rico, does not speak English, and has only lived in the mainland United States for two-and-a-half years. Id. at 6. Licensee was employed at a warehouse, where he received all of his work-related instructions in Spanish. Id. With regard to the incident giving rise to the appeal, Licensee acknowledged that he was intoxicated at the time that Officer O'Connor arrested him. Id. However, Licensee did not recall being asked to submit to a blood test, and he did not recall Officer O'Connor warning him that his driver's license would be suspended. Id. Licensee testified that he did not provide a blood sample to Officer O'Connor because he did not know what the officer was saying to him. Id.
Ultimately, the trial court held that Licensee could not have made a knowing and conscious refusal because he was unable to understand Officer O'Connor’s warning regarding the consequences of refusing to submit to a blood test. Id. at 14. The trial court noted that this Court has held that in some circumstances, a language barrier may affect a driver's ability to make a knowing and conscious refusal. Id . at 8. Citing Im v. Department of Transportation , 108 Pa.Cmwlth. 206, 529 A.2d 94 (1987), the trial court explained that this Court concluded that a native Korean failed to establish his refusal was not knowing or conscious because he responded to all of the officer's questions in English without the assistance of an interpreter. (Trial Ct. Op. at 9.) The trial court also highlighted Balthazar v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing , 123 Pa.Cmwlth. 435, 553 A.2d 1053 (1989), in which this Court held that a native Spanish speaker did not meet his burden of establishing that his refusal was not knowing or conscious where the record established that he testified extensively at the hearing without the assistance of an interpreter, and where a nurse communicated with him in Spanish before his refusal. (Trial Ct. Op. at 9.) Finally, the trial court cited Martinovic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing , 881 A.2d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), explaining that we held that a Serbo-Croatian speaker did not meet his burden to show that his refusal was not knowing or conscious because he attempted to submit to a breath test multiple times. (Trial Ct. Op. at 9.)
The trial court found the instant matter most analogous to this Court's decision in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Yi , 128 Pa.Cmwlth. 117, 562 A.2d 1008 (1989). In that case, the trial court observed, this Court held that substantial evidence supported the lower court's conclusion that the licensee's inability to understand English precluded him from making a knowing and conscious refusal where the licensee testified through an interpreter that he did not understand English, did not understand the ramifications of his refusal, never answered a question without the help of an interpreter, and the arresting officers testified that they were uncertain whether the licensee understood them. Likewise, here, the trial court reasoned that Licensee's "lack of understanding of the English language is undeniable; and, here, there are no additional facts or evidence to suggest ... that [Licensee] may have understood the cons...
To continue reading
Request your trial