133.515
Interpreter to be made available to person with a disability. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Person with
a disability” means a person who cannot readily understand or communicate the
English language, or cannot understand the proceedings or a charge made against
the person, or is incapable of presenting or assisting in the presentation of a
defense, because of deafness, or because of a physical hearing impairment or
physical speaking impairment.
(b) “Qualified
interpreter” means a person who is readily able to communicate with the person
with a disability, translate the proceedings, and accurately repeat and
translate the statements of the person with a disability to the officer or
other person.
(2) Upon the
arrest of a person with a disability and before interrogating or taking the
statement of the person with a disability, the arresting peace officer, or when
the arrest is by a private person, the officer to whom the person with a
disability is delivered, shall make available to the person with a disability,
at the earliest possible time, a qualified interpreter to assist the person
with a disability throughout the interrogation or taking of a statement.
(3) The public
employer of the arresting peace officer or officer to whom the person with a
disability is delivered shall pay the fees and expenses of the qualified
interpreter. [1973 c.386 §3; 1981 s.s. c.3 §139; 1989 c.224 §9; 2007 c.70 §34;
2015 c.397 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case:
State v. Vu, 770 P.2d 577 (Or. 1989).
State v. Vu, 770 P.2d 577 (Or. 1989).
· cites it 6× “Finally, defendant points to ORS 133.515, which requires that, before interrogation begins, an interpreter must be available to certain persons in certain circumstances.”
State v. Lunacolorado, 243 P.3d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “ORS 133.515 provides, in part, that, if a suspect cannot readily understand or communicate in the English language, then the officer shall make a qualified interpreter available to the suspect before interrogating him or taking his statement.”
State v. Weishar, 717 P.2d 231 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× ““(2) Said test results were obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights to counsel, rights against self incrimination, right to equal protection and due process of law and were obtained as a result of violation of ORS 133.515, and that said test was not voluntary or a…”
A. K. F. v. Burdette, 484 P.3d 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“, ORS 133.515 (defining “person with a disability” differently in the criminal statutes in determining when an interpreter must be made available during criminal proceedings); see also, e.”
State v. Hernandez, 326 P.3d 1285 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “He claimed that there had been a breakdown in communication, and that he had not understood what was being asked of him when he allegedly said that he no longer wanted an attorney because he is unable to understand or to speak English and because the Sheriffs Office failed to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.515(1) — 2 cases
State v. Vu, 770 P.2d 577 (Or. 1989).
“Finally, defendant points to ORS 133.515, which requires that, before interrogation begins, an interpreter must be available to certain persons in certain circumstances.”
State v. Weishar, 717 P.2d 231 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
““(2) Said test results were obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights to counsel, rights against self incrimination, right to equal protection and due process of law and were obtained as a result of violation of ORS 133.515, and that said test was not voluntary or a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.515(2) — 1 case
State v. Hernandez, 326 P.3d 1285 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“He claimed that there had been a breakdown in communication, and that he had not understood what was being asked of him when he allegedly said that he no longer wanted an attorney because he is unable to understand or to speak English and because the Sheriffs Office failed to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.515(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Vu, 770 P.2d 577 (Or. 1989).
“Finally, defendant points to ORS 133.515, which requires that, before interrogation begins, an interpreter must be available to certain persons in certain circumstances.”
State v. Weishar, 717 P.2d 231 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
““(2) Said test results were obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights to counsel, rights against self incrimination, right to equal protection and due process of law and were obtained as a result of violation of ORS 133.515, and that said test was not voluntary or a…”
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.