Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 24-6-653 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 24-6-653 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 24-6-653

TITLE 24 EVIDENCE

Section 6. Witnesses, 24-6-601 through 24-6-658.

ARTICLE 3 USE OF SIGN LANGUAGE AND INTERMEDIARY INTERPRETER IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

24-6-653. Procedure for interrogation and taking of statements from hearing impaired persons arrested for violation of criminal laws.

  1. An arresting law enforcement agency shall provide a qualified interpreter to any hearing impaired person whenever a hearing impaired person is arrested for allegedly violating any criminal law or ordinance of this state or any political subdivision thereof.
    1. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, no interrogation, warning, informing of rights, taking of statements, or other investigatory procedures shall be undertaken upon a hearing impaired person unless a qualified interpreter has been provided or the law enforcement agency has taken such other steps as may be reasonable to accommodate such person's disability. No answer, statement, admission, or other evidence acquired through the interrogation of a hearing impaired person shall be admissible in any criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings unless such was knowingly and voluntarily given. No hearing impaired person who has been taken into custody and who is otherwise eligible for release shall be detained because of the unavailability of a qualified interpreter.
    2. If a qualified interpreter is not available, an arresting officer may interrogate or take a statement from such person, provided that if the hearing impaired person cannot hear spoken words with a hearing aid or other sound amplification device, such interrogation and answers thereto shall be in writing and shall be preserved and turned over to the court in the event such person is tried for the alleged offense.

(Code 1981, §24-6-653, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)

Law reviews.

- For casenote, "Rodriguez v. State: Addressing Georgia's Implied Consent Requirements for Non-English-Speaking Drivers," see 54 Mercer L. Rev. 1253 (2003).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Hearing impaired person arrested for driving under the influence was not entitled to a qualified interpreter before the person's rights under the implied consent law were conveyed to the person by the arresting officer. State v. Webb, 212 Ga. App. 872, 443 S.E.2d 630 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Giving implied consent card inadequate.

- Qualified interpreter was required to be present to convey implied consent warnings and rights to an impaired person before any questioning or advice was given and an officer's giving the person an "implied consent card" to read and writing an explanation were not sufficient. Allen v. State, 218 Ga. App. 844, 463 S.E.2d 522 (1995) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Impact of one-hour waiting period.

- When police have made a request for an interpreter and one has been provided, after the one-hour waiting period elapses, the police may proceed with their investigation under the implied consent laws. If, however, the impaired person intelligently waives the one-hour requirement, the police may proceed with written interrogatories and the person should answer in writing, and then the police may proceed under the implied consent law. Allen v. State, 218 Ga. App. 844, 463 S.E.2d 522 (1995) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Arresting officer failed to comply with statutory procedures.

- DUI conviction was reversed when the arresting officer failed to comply with the statutory procedures for communicating with a hearing-impaired detainee because the requirements in the statute were mandatory, and if not met, the evidence acquired was not admissible under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103. Yates v. State, 248 Ga. App. 35, 545 S.E.2d 169 (2001) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Non hearing-impaired defendant's equal protection argument failed when the defendant could not meet the defendant's burden to show that former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103 was arbitrary or otherwise not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Sisson v. State, 232 Ga. App. 61, 499 S.E.2d 422 (1998) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Failing to object to presence of interpreters.

- With regard to two defendants' convictions for murder, the defendants failed to show that the defendants received ineffective assistance of counsel based on the defendants' respective trial counsel failing to object to the presence of two sign language interpreters in the jury room as the trial court had the two interpreters take an oath swearing that, during jury deliberations, the interpreters would merely interpret and not interject the interpreters' personal opinions, conclusions, or comments. The defendants failed to present a shred of evidence that the interpreters did anything other than comply fully with the oath taken and that trial counsel had any reasons to suspect the interpreters did otherwise. Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 599, 669 S.E.2d 98 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Impact of failure to comply with procedure.

- When the arresting officer failed to comply with the procedure in former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103, such failure rendered blood test results inadmissible. State v. Woody, 215 Ga. App. 448, 449 S.E.2d 615 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Application to Spanish speaking people.

- Defendant's constitutional claims to the implied consent statutes were without merit since defendant, a Spanish speaking person, was not similarly situated to a hearing impaired person and, although similarly situated to an English-speaking person, there was a rational basis for requiring the implied consent warnings to be read in English. Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283, 565 S.E.2d 458 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 24-6-653

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Harris v. State, 837 S.E.2d 777 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 13, 2020 | 307 Ga. 657

...evidence three of his four pre-trial statements, each of which is discussed in detail in subdivision 2 (b) below. He argues, inter alia, that the statements were not freely and voluntarily made and that the State failed to comply with the statutory requirements of OCGA § 24-6-653, concerning the procedure for interviewing people who are hearing impaired....
... Figueroa at the crime scene should have been suppressed on the ground that it was not freely and voluntarily made because Harris was in custody at the time and he was not given the benefit of Miranda warnings. Harris also argues that, because the officer was required by OCGA § 24-6-653 to question him through a qualified interpreter, which he failed to do, the trial court was required to suppress the statement. The trial court determined that Harris was not in custody during his interview with Figueroa and that, therefore, Miranda warnings were not required....
...person in Harris’ position would have perceived that he was in 17 custody during his interaction with Figueroa, the trial court did not err in determining that Miranda warnings were not required. See id. Further, OCGA § 24-6-653 did not require the trial court to suppress Harris’ statement under these circumstances.6 A law 6 OCGA § 24-6-653 provides: (a) An arresting law enforcement agency shall provide a qualified interpreter to any hearing impaired person whenever a hearing impaired person is arrested for allegedly violating any criminal law...
...the court in the event such person is tried for the alleged 18 enforcement agency is not required to provide a hearing impaired person with a qualified interpreter until the hearing impaired person “is arrested.” See OCGA § 24-6-653 (a)....
...The record shows that Harris had not been formally arrested when he communicated with Figueroa; consequently, at that moment, there was no “arresting law enforcement agency” that was required to provide Harris with a “qualified interpreter”7 under OCGA § 24-6-653 (a) (emphasis supplied). And assuming that OCGA § 24-6-653 (b) applied to Harris, though he had neither been formally arrested nor found by the trial court to be in custody, the record also shows that Figueroa complied with paragraph (b) (1) by reasonably accommodating Harris’ disability by...
...Harris contends that he could not have knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under these circumstances because Bell was not a qualified sign language interpreter and that she essentially “spoke a different language.”8 Harris argues that using Bell as an interpreter violated OCGA §§ 24-6-653 (b) (1) and 24-6-656.9 For these reasons, he argues that 8 The record contains no evidence establishing Bell’s professional qualifications as a sign language interpreter....
...Again, because Harris had not been formally arrested when he gave this statement, the law enforcement agency was not required to provide him with a qualified interpreter pursuant to OCGA § 24- 6-653 (a). The record shows that Detective Erion nevertheless complied with OCGA § 24-6-653 (b) by reasonably accommodating Harris’ disability by providing him with Bell’s sign language assistance and by having Harris read his waiver-of-rights form and write down his statement. Assuming, without deciding, that Harri...
...d and was in custody. Harris contends that Bell was not qualified to participate in this meeting and that her efforts to facilitate communications between 22 him, his attorney, and Detective Erion violated OCGA §§ 24-6-653 (b) (1) and 24-6-656, rendering his written statement involuntary and inadmissible. The video recording of this interview shows that Harris initiated the interview through, and in the presence of, his defense counsel....
...that Erion might have about the written statement. 24 Under these circumstances, Bell’s involvement in the January 14 interview was harmless. First, it appears that Harris waived the requirements imposed by OCGA §§ 24-6-653 and 24-6-656 when he and his counsel requested this follow-up meeting and elected to “take a stab” at the interview with Bell interpreting.10 Further, the written statement that Harris ultimately gave was not translated by Bell....