The People v. Jose Aviles
28 N.Y.3d 497
| NY | 2016Background
- Jose Aviles was arrested after colliding with an NYPD vehicle; officer observed odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and unsteadiness. At IDTU his breath test showed .06 BAC (below .08). No physical coordination test was administered; technician noted “No coord test given” and “Language Barrier.”
- Defendant moved to dismiss misdemeanor information, arguing NYPD denied him a coordination test solely because he did not speak English, violating Equal Protection and Due Process. Criminal Court granted dismissal; Appellate Term reversed. Leave to appeal to Court of Appeals was granted.
- NYPD policy/practice: coordination (field sobriety) tests are administered only when officer can communicate instructions in English; NYPD asserted translators or multilingual officers are not practicable for timely, reliable administration.
- Trial court found the denial deprived Aviles of potentially exculpatory evidence given his low BAC; appellate courts and majority focused on constitutional standards for equal protection and due process.
- Majority held the policy is facially neutral (based on language proficiency), applied rational-basis review, and found the policy rationally related to legitimate interests (test reliability, timeliness, administrative burden); due process claim also rejected.
- Dissent argued language can function as a proxy for national origin (triggering heightened scrutiny), pointed to NYPD/City language-access resources and Title VI guidance, and would have reversed and dismissed the accusatory instrument.
Issues
| Issue | Aviles's Argument | NYPD/People's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection: whether NYPD policy of withholding coordination tests from non-English speakers discriminates on a suspect-class or otherwise requires heightened review | Policy discriminates on basis of language which proxies national origin; thus strict scrutiny or at least invalid under equal protection because it denies access to potentially exculpatory evidence | Policy is facially neutral (based on ability to understand English, not ethnicity) so rational-basis review applies; policy furthers legitimate interests (test reliability, timeliness, administrative cost) | Rational-basis applies; policy survives review—no equal protection violation (affirmed) |
| Due Process: whether denying a coordination test based on language deprives defendant of procedural due process | Denial deprived defendant of potentially exculpatory, investigatory evidence and impaired ability to defend; City has language-access resources to avoid burden | Police have no constitutional duty to perform particular investigative steps; interests in reliable, timely testing and avoiding fiscal/administrative burdens justify policy | No due process violation; police are not required to provide coordination test or translation for investigative procedures (claim rejected) |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (establishes strict-scrutiny framework for suspect classifications)
- Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir.) (language alone does not identify a suspect class; rational-basis review applied)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (recognizes that language proficiency may in some contexts operate as a proxy for national origin)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural due process balancing test)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (no due process right to police performance of investigatory steps that might aid defense)
- People v. Salazar, 112 A.D.3d 5 (rejecting similar constitutional challenge to NYPD practice)
- People v. Ramos, 85 N.Y.2d 678 (New York precedents on due process and interpreter rights in judicial proceedings)