By The Associated Press
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) -- A breath test conducted on a hearing impaired driver was excluded from the legal case because police didn’t adequately communicate to the driver his rights in the case, a judge ruled.
Vermont District Court Judge John Wesley ruled that Eric Putnam probably did not understand the attempts by three Bellows Falls to explain his right to refuse a breath test or to consult an attorney before taking one.
Wesley credited both Sgt. William Hoyt and Officer Jennifer Carroll for trying to make Putnam understand his rights.
“I am persuaded by the testimony today that despite the best efforts of Officer Hoyt and especially Officer Carroll I cannot be convinced that Mr. Putnam had sufficient understanding of his right to consult an attorney,” Wesley said.
Putnam was stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence a year ago.
Wesley said that it was understandable that Carroll thought she had established a good line of communication with Putnam, allowing the deaf man to lip read by speaking slowly and using a legal pad to write out questions. But the testimony of a defense expert on hearing impairments cast doubts on how much Putnam understood.
The judge cited a police form in which both “yes” and “no” boxes were checked when Putnam was asked if he understood his rights as an example of the confusion.
“It now seems clear to the court that law enforcement agencies act to their peril if reasonable efforts are not made to get in touch with an interpreter,” Wesley said.
However, Wesley did not grant the defense’s request to suppress the testimony of Hoyt and Carroll.
Putnam said after the session that he was relieved by Wesley’s ruling, which also reinstated his driver’s license.
“I think he was being fair,” Putnam said through an interpreter. “I wish people would educate the police more about the deaf.”
Windham County Deputy State’s Attorney Nathaniel Seeley said the suppression of the breathalyzer did not necessarily mean the end of the criminal charges against Putnam.
“The breath test is one of many factors,” Seeley said. “We have to make a decision about whether to go forward or not. We don’t need a breath test to prosecute a DUI.”