§
Subdivision 1.Proceedings and preliminary proceedings involving possible criminal sanctions or confinement.
In any proceeding in which a person disabled in communication may be subjected to confinement, criminal sanction, or forfeiture of the person's property, and in any proceeding preliminary to that proceeding, including coroner's inquest, grand jury proceedings, and proceedings relating to mental health commitments, the presiding judicial officer shall appoint a qualified interpreter to assist the person disabled in communication and any witness disabled in communication throughout the proceedings.
§
Subd. 2.Proceedings at time of apprehension or arrest.
Following the apprehension or arrest of a person disabled in communication for an alleged violation of a criminal law, the arresting officer, sheriff or other law enforcement official shall immediately make necessary contacts to obtain a qualified interpreter and shall obtain an interpreter at the earliest possible time at the place of detention. A law enforcement officer shall, with the assistance of the interpreter, explain to the person disabled in communication, all charges filed against the person, and all procedures relating to the person's detainment and release. If the property of a person is seized under section 609.531, subdivision 4, the seizing officer, sheriff, or other law enforcement official shall, upon request, make available to the person at the earliest possible time a qualified interpreter to assist the person in understanding the possible consequences of the seizure and the person's right to judicial review. If the seizure is governed by section 609.5314, subdivision 2, a request for an interpreter must be made within 15 days after service of the notice of seizure and forfeiture. For a person who requests an interpreter under this section because of a seizure of property under section 609.5314, the 60 days for filing a demand for a judicial determination of a forfeiture begins when the interpreter is provided. The interpreter shall also assist the person with all other communications, including communications relating to needed medical attention. Prior to interrogating or taking the statement of the person disabled in communication, the arresting officer, sheriff, or other law enforcement official shall make available to the person a qualified interpreter to assist the person throughout the interrogation or taking of a statement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1986–2019 · leading case:
State v. Farrah, 735 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. 2007).
State v. Farrah, 735 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 14× “Minn.Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2 (2006). [6] A person disabled *342 in communication includes one who, "because of difficulty in speaking or comprehending the English language, cannot fully understand the proceedings or any charges made against the person * * * or is incapable of…”
State v. Lopez-Ramos, 929 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 4× “31 (2018), the police "shall obtain an interpreter at the earliest possible time," Minn. Stat. § 611.32 , subd. 2 (2018). Section 611.”
State v. Kail, 760 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 14× “Minn.Stat. § 611.32. One is disabled in communications when, (a) because of a hearing, speech, or other communication disorder, or (b) because of difficulty in speaking or comprehending the English language, [the person] cannot fully understand the proceedings or any charges…”
State v. Sanchez-Diaz, 683 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Minn.Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2 (2002). This right is not a constitutional one and violation of the statute does not require the application of the exclusionary rule.”
Douglas Duane Bahl v. City of St. Paul, 695 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Negligence per se Finally, in granting summary judgment to the City on Bahl’s claim that the City violated its statutory duty under Minn. Stat. § 611.32 to provide him with an interpreter to communicate the reasons for his arrest and detention, the district court concluded that…”
State v. Marin, 541 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 16× “Minn.Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2 (1994). A person is handicapped in communication if he or she cannot understand legal proceedings because of a difficulty speaking or comprehending English.”
State v. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2. However qualified he or she is to act as an interpreter, a police officer is not the sort *830 of independent interpreter the legislature intended would assist the suspect throughout the interrogation.”
State v. Lopez-Ramos, 913 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “To support its argument that Lopez-Ramos is the sole declarant, the state also cites Minn. Stat. §§ 611.32 , subd. 2, and .33, subd.”
State v. Mitjans, 394 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “Did the trial court err by sentencing? ANALYSIS I Admission of confession Appellant rests his argument that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the English translation of his statement on Minn.Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2 (1984), which governs use of interpreters during…”
State v. Yang, 627 N.W.2d 666 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 611.32, subd. 1 (2000). A person is handicapped in communication if, because of difficulty in speaking or comprehending the English language, [the person] cannot fully understand the proceedings * * * against the person, * * * or is incapable of presenting or *676…”
Warner v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 498 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Appellant argues he was entitled to an interpreter under Minn.Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2 (Supp.1991).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.