Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 611.33 (2026)

Qualified Interpreter

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Qualifications.

No person shall be appointed as a qualified interpreter pursuant to sections 611.30 to 611.34 unless said person is readily able to communicate with the disabled person, translate the proceedings for the disabled person, and accurately repeat and translate the statements of the disabled person to the officials before whom the proceeding is taking place.

Subd. 2.Oath.

Every qualified interpreter appointed pursuant to the provisions of sections 611.30 to 611.34, before entering upon duties as such, shall take an oath, to make to the best of the interpreter's skill and judgment a true interpretation to the disabled person being examined of all the proceedings, in a language which said person understands, and to repeat the statements, in the English language, of said person to the court or other officials before whom the proceeding is taking place.

Subd. 3.Fees and expenses.

The fees and expenses of a qualified interpreter shall be fixed and ordered paid by the presiding official before whom the proceeding is taking place. The fees and expenses must be paid by the state courts. Payment for any activities requiring interpreter services on behalf of law enforcement, the Board of Public Defense, prosecutors, or corrections agents other than court appearances is the responsibility of the agency that requested the services.

Subd. 4.Privileged communication.

An interpreter pursuant to sections 611.30 to 611.34 shall not, without the consent of the person disabled in communication, be allowed to disclose any privileged communication made by the person or any privileged information gathered from the person which was communicated or gathered during the time of service as an interpreter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2019 · leading case: State v. Lopez-Ramos, 929 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Lopez-Ramos, 929 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 4× “" Minn. Stat. § 611.33 , subd. 2 (2018). We have recognized that "[t]he obvious purpose of the oath requirement in such a situation is to impress upon the interpreter that he is legally obliged to interpret fairly and accurately.”

State v. Sanchez-Diaz, 683 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 5× “However, in Dominguez-Ramirez, the police officer who acted as an interpreter violated section 611.33, subdivision 2, by not taking an oath, and we declined to suppress the defendant's statement.”

State v. Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d 245 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 611.33. 4 . Lagunas’s parents are from Mexico, but he was born in Texas.”

State v. Lopez-Ramos, 913 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “2 (requiring law enforcement to obtain a qualified interpreter "[f]ollowing the apprehension or arrest of a person disabled in communication for an alleged violation of a criminal law"); Minn. Stat. § 611.33 , subd. 2 (requiring a qualified interpreter to take an oath in court…”

State v. Mitjans, 394 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “34, before entering upon his duties as such, shall take an oath that he will, to the best of his skill and judgment, make a true interpretation * * * Minn.Stat. § 611.33, subd. 2 (1984) (emphasis added).”

State v. Her, 510 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 611.33, subds. 1, 2 (1990); see also Minn.”

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.