People v. Salazar, 112 A.D.3d 5

Background

Officer Iglesias found defendant slumped in a running car with a blown tire, an open beer, alcohol smell, bloodshot eyes; defendant admitted in Spanish he was drunk and was arrested.
At the precinct, defendant consented to a breathalyzer after receiving English reading plus a Spanish-language tape; result was .21% BAC.
The trained breathalyzer/coordination operator (Officer King) did not administer the standardized physical coordination test because defendant did not speak English and the Department lacked a Spanish tape or a trained Spanish-speaking coordinator.
Trial resulted in a DWI conviction; defendant moved under CPL 330.30(1) to set aside the verdict, arguing the Department’s practice of offering coordination tests only to English speakers violated Equal Protection and Due Process.
The trial court granted the motion, found the practice discriminatorily burdened primarily Spanish-speaking Hispanics and dismissed charges; the Appellate Division reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Equal Protection — classification	Police practice effectively discriminates against Hispanic, non-English speakers by withholding coordination tests.	Policy is facially neutral (based on language ability), adopted to protect test reliability and avoid interpreter-related confusion.	No equal protection violation; classification is language-based (not a suspect racial classification) and is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.
Equal Protection — intent to discriminate	Defendant argues effect shows discrimination against Hispanics.	No evidence of anti-Hispanic intent; decision based on avoiding unreliable administration by untrained translators.	No showing of intentional discrimination; strict scrutiny not triggered.
Due Process — right to obtain investigative evidence	Defendant argues deprivation of ability to obtain potentially exculpatory coordination evidence violates due process.	Police have no affirmative duty to obtain evidence for defendant; coordination tests are investigative, not judicial, and breath test plus observations sufficed.	No due process violation; Mathews balancing shows no entitlement to compel such investigative procedures.
Procedural burden of providing interpreters	Defendant: interpreters would safeguard rights and avoid errors.	City: 24/7 qualified interpreters would impose substantial fiscal/administrative burdens and delay evidence.	Governmental interest and burdens are legitimate; requirement would be impracticable and is not constitutionally compelled.

Key Cases Cited

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (equal protection protects against intentional/arbitrary discrimination)
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (strict scrutiny when government action burdens suspect class or fundamental right)
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (framework for suspect class/fundamental right analysis)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three-factor due process balancing test)
Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, 413 U.S. 189 (Hispanics as an ethnic group constitute a suspect class)
Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (right to interpreter arises at or after commencement of adversary judicial proceedings)
People v. Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46 (police have no affirmative duty to gather evidence for an accused)
People v. Finnegan, 85 N.Y.2d 53 (same principle regarding investigative duties)