People v. Aviles, 27 N.Y.3d 500 (2016)

A facially neutral policy that denies physical coordination tests to non-English speakers does not violate equal protection because it is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, and does not violate due process because the police have no duty to assist a defendant in gathering evidence.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the NYPD’s policy of not administering physical coordination tests to non-English speaking suspects violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Jose Aviles, who spoke only Spanish, was arrested for drunk driving and not given a coordination test due to his language barrier. The Court held that the policy did not violate equal protection because it was rationally related to the government’s interests in ensuring test reliability and avoiding administrative burdens. The Court further held that the failure to administer the test did not violate due process because the police have no obligation to provide evidence to assist a defendant.

Facts

Jose Aviles was arrested for drunk driving after an accident. He spoke only Spanish and was observed with signs of intoxication. He consented to a breathalyzer test, which registered below the legal limit. Due to his inability to speak English, he was not given a physical coordination test. Aviles was charged with driving while impaired and driving while intoxicated. He moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that denying him the coordination test violated his equal protection and due process rights.

Procedural History

The Criminal Court granted Aviles’ motion, finding constitutional violations. The Appellate Term reversed, relying on a prior Appellate Division decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Term’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the NYPD’s policy of not administering physical coordination tests to non-English speakers violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the NYPD’s policy of not administering physical coordination tests to non-English speakers violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Holding

1. No, because the policy is rationally related to legitimate government interests.
2. No, because the police have no duty to assist a defendant in gathering evidence.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding Equal Protection, the court found the NYPD policy facially neutral because it applied to anyone unable to understand English, not specifically targeting any suspect class. The Court determined that rational basis review applied because no suspect class or fundamental right was implicated. The court reasoned that the policy was rationally related to ensuring the reliability of coordination tests, which depend on clear instructions, and to avoiding the financial and administrative burden of providing translation services or multilingual officers. The Court noted that the value of coordination tests diminishes with time, making translation impractical. The court also rejected Aviles’ argument that the policy discriminated based on national origin because the policy was based on language ability, not ethnicity.

On the Due Process issue, the Court found that the police have no duty to assist a defendant in gathering evidence or performing a certain investigative step. The Court distinguished between the right to an interpreter in judicial proceedings and the discretionary, investigative nature of coordination tests. The Court concluded that, even if there were a due process right, it would be outweighed by the state’s interest in efficient and reliable law enforcement.

Practical Implications

This case clarifies that facially neutral policies, even if they have a disparate impact, do not automatically trigger heightened scrutiny. The ruling supports law enforcement’s ability to make practical decisions during investigations, even if those decisions might disadvantage some individuals. Lawyers should anticipate courts applying rational basis review when challenging similar policies. Further, this decision reinforces that the police have no affirmative duty to assist defendants. It also highlights the importance of how the government’s articulated interests are directly linked to the challenged policy. Later cases involving language access may attempt to distinguish this case by arguing intentional discrimination based on national origin if a policy is shown to be a pretext for racial discrimination.