Opinion ID: 77631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: police station

Text: 64 Once Bircoll was arrested and arrived at the police station at 4:10 a.m., the exigencies of the situation were greatly reduced. Nonetheless, time remained a factor in obtaining an Intoxilyzer test that accurately measured Bircoll's impairment, or lack thereof, while driving at 3:00 a.m. Townsend read the consent warning to Bircoll. Hearing individuals, even if impaired by alcohol, at least hear the consent warning, and Bircoll is entitled to be placed on equal footing with other arrestees at the police station. Thus, we conclude that at the police station, Townsend was required to take appropriate steps to ensure that his communication with Bircoll was as effective as with other individuals arrested for DUI. 65 What steps are reasonably necessary to establish effective communication with a hearing-impaired person after a DUI arrest and at a police station will depend on all the factual circumstances of the case, including, but not limited to: 66 (1) the abilities of, and the usual and preferred method of communication used by, the hearing-impaired arrestee; 67 (2) the nature of the criminal activity involved and the importance, complexity, context, and duration of the police communication at issue; 68 (3) the location of the communication and whether it is a one-on-one communication; and 69 (4) whether the arrestee's requested method of communication imposes an undue burden or fundamental change and whether another effective, but nonburdensome, method of communication exists. 70 In many circumstances, oral communication plus gestures and visual aids or note writing will achieve effective communication. In other circumstances, an interpreter will be needed. There is no bright-line rule, and the inquiry is highly fact-specific. Thus, we examine all factual circumstances to ascertain whether Townsend achieved effective communication with Bircoll. 71 As to his abilities and usual communication mode, Bircoll has a twenty percent hearing capacity when using his hearing aid and relies on lipreading to communicate. Bircoll can understand about half of what is said when he is lipreading. He can also read, write, and speak in English. 72 The police communication at issue — the consent warning — although important, is short and not complex. Moreover, even before that night, Bircoll already had some knowledge of what Townsend sought to communicate to him. In a deposition, when questioned about the Intoxilyzer test, Bircoll testified that I know that if you fail the sobriety test, you have to do the breathalyzer test, yes. Bircoll also already knew that if he refused the Intoxilyzer, he would lose his license for a year. 19 73 The communication at issue was one-on-one, with Townsend sitting next to Bircoll on a bench. Townsend read the consent form aloud to Bircoll twice. Townsend spoke to Bircoll in lighted conditions. Moreover, an effective, non-burdensome method of communication existed as to this short implied consent warning. Bircoll can read English, and Townsend gave him a copy of the form to read. Townsend thus accommodated Bircoll by giving him written material. Bircoll's own failure to read what Townsend provided him does not constitute discrimination. 74 We recognize that there are factual issues about whether Bircoll requested an interpreter many times at the station and whether Townsend was facing, or turning away from, Bircoll. Nonetheless, Bircoll admits that Townsend read the form aloud twice and gave him a copy. Even assuming the facts most favorable to Bircoll, we conclude that, under all the circumstances here and especially given Bircoll's admitted prior knowledge, Townsend established effective communication with Bircoll regarding the consent warning and Intoxilyzer test. Accordingly, Miami-Dade did not violate the ADA at the police station.