Yawn, I waited to reply for a lot of reasons but here goes. For those who do not want to read these posts of mine, then just skip over it.
Not true - PERIOD!
You are conflating an administrative duty of the CDL holder in a closely regulated industry with a criminal investigation/criminal adjudication.
Unless you are suspected of a crime, your Fifth Amendment rights are reserved and limited.
This has been addressed by the courts.
In legal terms, while the Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incriminating testimony, the “required records doctrine” from Shapiro v. United States (1948) limits its application here.
This means that if you are questioned about, say HOS logs, and you invoke your Fifth Amendment right not to because it may lead to incriminate yourself say, of a falsified log entry, your rights are limited to answering questions under the decision in Shapiro. This means that you have an Administrative Duty to assist in and to provide all required information to the examining officer at the time of the inspection.
Now there is a limitation to this, if you are in an US Dot qualified accident, your rights are extended.
Where do you think this is coming from?
I got it from not just my lawyer but also the ACLU. It is not coming from an internet lawyer who is not making specific case statements to an individual in a unique situation.
Nope, you must follow the instructions of the inspecting officer, assist with their inspection and to answer all questions honestly and with the best of your knowledge.
Again addressed in the courts - in California v. Byers the court ruled on a similar issue but it applies to FMCSA and states, whereas the driver has to provide all the needed information in order to provide the inspecting officer with the information.
We haven't, just the opposite. There is a limited application under a regulated industry, and this one is considered a closely regulated industry with a public interest for safety. You have yet to prove what I said was wrong, where I have cited two cases of six cases that back up my point and not one case that I could see that supports yours. You are again sidestepping the differences between an administrative action and a criminal/civil one.
Wrong again, you are ignoring the fact that an English-only requirement is legal and has been held up in court maybe a dozen times because it simply does not interfere with one's First Amendment rights.
This is for an administrative purpose in the regulation, and you again are trying to create a claim there is a limitation of speech imposed on a driver who can not communicate in English, and the regulation is a violation of their rights.
From an email I received, The FMCSA’s English proficiency requirement does not directly regulate speech content (e.g., what a driver can say) or expressive conduct (e.g., symbolic actions). Instead, it mandates a functional ability to communicate in English for safety and regulatory purposes. It does not prohibit drivers from speaking other languages in personal or professional contexts outside of regulatory requirements, nor does it restrict their ability to express ideas, opinions, or beliefs.
Furthermore, the First Amendment typically applies to laws that restrict the content of speech, compel speech, or burden expressive conduct. The English proficiency rule is better characterized as a qualification for operating a CMV, akin to other regulatory requirements (e.g., vision standards or medical certifications). It regulates conduct (driving a CMV) and imposes a language proficiency requirement to ensure safety, not to suppress expression.
And finally, the SC has recognized public safety as a substantial government interest in regulated industries, such as transportation (New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 1987). The English requirement is tied to this interest, as most U.S. traffic signs, signals, and regulatory documents are in English, and law enforcement interactions typically occur in English.
Courts have addressed this in one manner or another;
Yñiguez v. Arizonans
Lowe v. SEC
FAA v. Cooper
Supportive cases;
United States v. O’Brien
New York v. Burger
And there has been one case trying to get the English-only rule tossed based on a 4th, 5th, or 6th right violations, all of them never made it past the preliminary stage except one; OOIDA v. Dunaski, which was tossed out.
Yes, they do, it has been in court and it was ruled that closely regulated industries are subject to language rules and regulations - FAA v. Cooper.
Not domestic flights.
Actually, he does.
FIrst Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. § 31136) and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq.) both give him that power and the power to change regulations on both the FMCSA level and the US DoT level to mitigate safety issues. Albeit he has to justify the regulation changes and/or enforcement needs, he has the authority. The same powers reside with his boss, the president.
Second, he can not directly revoke CDLs unless they pose a danger to the public which means he can if he declares an emergency and issues emergency orders under 49 U.S.C. § 521(b)(5) to declare drivers or carriers an “imminent hazard,” hence revoking the CDLs of non-english and non-domicile CDL holders.
Third, and this is also in his kit, in issuing the emergency order, he could also issue a regulation mandating states to revoke CDLs for specific safety criteria (e.g., 49 CFR § 383.51 for disqualifications), which the states can not challenge because of their agreement with the FMCSA/US DoT under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, more specifically the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program which allows not only the states to enforce the federal regulation as if it is their own but also allows states to apply stricter regulations to their domestic vechicles and operations.
ARKANSAS English Checks Have Begun, They’re checking ALL trucks
Discussion in 'Ask An Owner Operator' started by Tarh331_Dad, Mar 17, 2025.
- Thread Status:
- Not open for further replies.
Page 31 of 45
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
-
-
-
No one is saying the rule is racist. The concern is how the rule is going to be implemented. Are Juan and Hassan going to get targeted while Ivan and Vlad get waved through? Is having a thick accent going to be enough to be put OOS?
I've had students who spoke with no accent and were able to pick up on cues enough to make it seem like they understood English when they didn't. I've also had guys whose accent was so thick you'd need an acetylene torch to cut it but were more than capable of doing the job. I've had native born Americans with a lower communication skills than a guy with 3 months in country. Yet they all had CDLs - that is the crux of the issue.
This new emphasis on enforcement is entirely missing the point.
There is a direct correlation between home ownership and school performance. Controlled for all different variables, over time, and any way you want to slice it, parents who own their own home have kids that do better in school. Removing lending safeguards and subsidizing home construction will result in greater home ownership rates, but doesn't translate into better school performance because the underlying factor was ignored- people who are financially stable make better choices. Raising the minimum wage and tightening salaried overtime rules would do more to improve outcomes for kids while avoiding the distortion of the housing market.
In the early 2000s, Republicans pushed through a series of changes that made it easier for financially unstable individuals to acquire a home. Beyond making it easier for poor folks to buy a home they can't afford, these changes made it easier for predatory lending and speculation in the housing market - all subsidized by the Federal Government. Then everything crashed in 2008.
I draw this parallel not to bring politics into the main forum but as a real world example of the inanity of this rule change. If a driver has "Limited English Proficiency" during an inspection, he can now be put OOS instead of receiving a citation. Okay, what is the standard for LEP? And how does the driver "cure" the OOS? The more important question is how did the driver obtain a CDL in the first place?
ELDT rules that were created during Trump's first term do NOTHING to ensure English language proficiency. ELDT also does nothing to improve the quality of new cdl entrants. All it does it provide a cash grab to CDL mills. If you want to deal with English proficiency then you need to focus on the process of obtaining a CDL. No more multiple guess tests - short answer only. Institute a map reading test. Add a BOL section - give the applicant a BOL and have them identify the shipper, the consignee, the commodity, is it hazmat, is a tanker endorsement required, etc. End the road test by giving the applicant a written route plan that they must follow to get back to the yard.
If you look through my postings you'll see I've been advocating for stricter CDL acquisition rules and English proficiency since 2012. The recent spat of English proficiency rules smacks of
and not any real desire for change. -
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 31 of 45
- Thread Status:
- Not open for further replies.