273 P.3d 125
Or.2012Background
- Defendant is a native Spanish speaker with weak English proficiency.
- A witness observed defendant’s car crash into an onion field at high speed.
- Defendant was arrested for DUII after impairment suspected.
- Officer Romans read the implied consent rights and consequences to defendant in English at the station.
- Defendant moved to suppress the breath-test refusal evidence on language-barrier grounds; trial court and Court of Appeals denied relief.
- Oregon Supreme Court held that denial of suppression was proper because reading in English complied with the statute and the refusal evidence remains admissible despite language barriers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does informing under ORS 813.100(1) require driver understanding of consequences? | Nunez asserts lack of understanding should suppress. | Nunez argues language barrier means not informed. | Not required; informed as described under ORS 813.130 suffices. |
| Does a language barrier invalidate admission of refusal evidence under ORS 813.310/813.320? | Nunez contends failure to understand invalidates evidence. | Refusal evidence admissible if the driver was informed. | Admissible; understanding not constitutionally or statutorily required for admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Trenary, 316 Or. 172 (1993) (two reasons for coercive purposes of field sobriety testing; information enough to compel submission)
- State v. Fish, 321 Or. 48 (1995) (advising consequences to compel testing under field sobriety framework)
- State v. Newton, 291 Or. 788 (1981) (implied consent; purpose to enforce consent and compel submission)
- State v. Spencer, 305 Or. 59 (1988) (history shows advice to provide incentive to submit to tests; coercive aim)
- Nguyen v. State, 107 Or.App. 716 (1991) (language-barrier implied consent issue in Appellate Court)