Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 885.37 (2026)
Interpreters in municipal courts and administrative agency contested cases
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
885.37(1)(1) If a municipal court has notice that a person who is a juvenile or parent subject to ch. 938, or who is a witness in a proceeding under ch. 938, has a language difficulty because of the inability to speak or understand English, has a hearing impairment, is unable to speak or has a speech defect, the court shall make a factual determination of whether the language difficulty or the hearing or speaking impairment is sufficient to prevent the individual from communicating with his or her attorney, reasonably understanding the English testimony or reasonably being understood in English. If the court determines that an interpreter is necessary, the court shall advise the person that he or she has a right to a qualified interpreter and that, if the person cannot afford one, an interpreter will be provided for him or her at the public’s expense. Any waiver of the right to an interpreter is effective only if made voluntarily in person, in open court and on the record.
885.37(2)(2) A municipal court may authorize the use of an interpreter in actions or proceedings in addition to those specified in sub. (1).
885.37(3)(a)2.2. “Contested case” means a proceeding before an agency in which, after a hearing required by law, substantial interests of any party to the proceeding are determined or adversely affected by a decision or order in the proceeding and in which the assertion by one party of any such substantial interest is denied or controverted by another party to the proceeding.
885.37(3)(b)(b) In any administrative contested case proceeding before a state, county or municipal agency, if the agency conducting the proceeding has notice that a party to the proceeding has a language difficulty because of the inability to speak or understand English, has a hearing impairment, is unable to speak or has a speech defect, the agency shall make a factual determination of whether the language difficulty or hearing or speaking impairment is sufficient to prevent the party from communicating with others, reasonably understanding the English testimony or reasonably being understood in English. If the agency determines that an interpreter is necessary, the agency shall advise the party that he or she has a right to a qualified interpreter. After considering the party’s ability to pay and the other needs of the party, the agency may provide for an interpreter for the party at the public’s expense. Any waiver of the right to an interpreter is effective only if made at the administrative contested case proceeding.
885.37(3m)(3m) Any agency may authorize the use of an interpreter in a contested case proceeding for a person who is not a party but who has a substantial interest in the proceeding.
885.37(4)(a)(a) The necessary expense of furnishing an interpreter for an indigent person in a municipal court shall be paid by the municipality.
885.37(4)(b)(b) The necessary expense of furnishing an interpreter for an indigent party under sub. (3) shall be paid by the unit of government for which the proceeding is held.
885.37(5)(a)(a) If a municipal court under sub. (1) or (2) or an agency under sub. (3) decides to appoint an interpreter, the court or agency shall follow the applicable procedure under par. (b) or (c).
885.37(5)(b)(b) The department of health services shall maintain a list of qualified interpreters for use with persons who have hearing impairments. The department shall distribute the list, upon request and without cost, to courts and agencies who must appoint interpreters. If an interpreter needs to be appointed for a person who has a hearing impairment, the court or agency shall appoint a qualified interpreter from the list. If no listed interpreter is available or able to interpret, the court or agency shall appoint as interpreter another person who is able to accurately communicate with and convey information to and receive information from the hearing-impaired person.
885.37(5)(c)(c) If an interpreter needs to be appointed for a person with an impairment or difficulty not covered under par. (b), the court or agency may appoint any person the court or agency decides is qualified.
885.37 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 760 (1975); 1975 c. 106, 199; Stats. 1975 s. 885.37; 1985 a. 266; 1987 a. 27; 1995 a. 27 ss. 7207 to 7209, 9126 (19); 1995 a. 77; 2001 a. 16; 2007 a. 20 s. 9121 (6) (a); 2021 a. 238 s. 44.
885.37 AnnotationA court has notice of a language difficulty when it becomes aware that a defendant’s difficulty with English may impair the defendant’s ability to communicate with counsel, to understand testimony, or to be understood in English and does not hinge on a request from counsel for an interpreter. State v. Yang, 201 Wis. 2d 725, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0583.
885.37 AnnotationThe hearing on the accommodation should precede the substantive hearing. Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31, 316 Wis. 2d 548, 766 N.W.2d 219, 07-2898.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1984–2012 · leading case: State v. Xiong Yang, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Xiong Yang, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “[2] Section 885.37, STATS., codifies the obligation to provide an interpreter that was established in State v.”
State v. Piddington, 2001 WI 24 (Wis. 2001). “See Wis. Stat. § 885.37 (the deaf and hard-of-hearing *789 have a right to interpreters in court); see also State v.”
State v. Neave, 344 N.W.2d 181 (Wis. 1984). “Section 885.37, Stats, provides: “885.37 Interpreters for hearing-handicapped persons.”
State v. Santiago, 556 N.W.2d 687 (Wis. 1996). “19 Wis. Stat. § 885.37 . 20 Wis. Stat. §905.”
Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Le, 517 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1994). “*864 [3] The principal statutes involved in this case are sec.885.37, Stats., and sec. 20.625, Stats.”
State v. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62 (Wis. 2002). “is sufficient to prevent the individual from communicating with his or her attorney, reasonably understanding the English testimony or reasonably being understood in English. If the court determines that an interpreter is necessary, the court shall advise the person that he or…”
Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “However, since the determination does not require an elaborate proceeding, we believe our interpretation of § 885.37(1), Stats., will aid judicial administration by establishing the need for an interpreter, if there is one, earlier rather than later in the criminal process.”
State ex rel. Patel v. State, 2012 WI App 117 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “1996), addressed the issue of whether a court erred in not conducting an inquiry to determine if an interpreter was necessary as required by Wis. Stat. § 885.37 (1), which refers to interpreters in municipal courts and administrative agency cases.”
Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Tai V. Le, 517 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1994). “*864 The principal statutes involved in this case are sec.885.37, Stats., and sec. 20.625, Stats.”
State v. Santiago, 542 N.W.2d 466 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “See generally § 885.37, STATS. (discussing court appointment of interpreters); see also State v.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.37(1) — 2 cases
State v. Xiong Yang, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “[2] Section 885.37, STATS., codifies the obligation to provide an interpreter that was established in State v.”
Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “However, since the determination does not require an elaborate proceeding, we believe our interpretation of § 885.37(1), Stats., will aid judicial administration by establishing the need for an interpreter, if there is one, earlier rather than later in the criminal process.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.37(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Xiong Yang, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “[2] Section 885.37, STATS., codifies the obligation to provide an interpreter that was established in State v.”
Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Le, 517 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1994). “*864 [3] The principal statutes involved in this case are sec.885.37, Stats., and sec. 20.625, Stats.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.37(4)(b) — 2 cases
Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Le, 517 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1994). “*864 [3] The principal statutes involved in this case are sec.885.37, Stats., and sec. 20.625, Stats.”
Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Tai V. Le, 517 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1994). “*864 The principal statutes involved in this case are sec.885.37, Stats., and sec. 20.625, Stats.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.37(l)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Xiong Yang, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “[2] Section 885.37, STATS., codifies the obligation to provide an interpreter that was established in State v.”
Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “However, since the determination does not require an elaborate proceeding, we believe our interpretation of § 885.37(1), Stats., will aid judicial administration by establishing the need for an interpreter, if there is one, earlier rather than later in the criminal process.”
Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Tai V. Le, 517 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1994). “*864 The principal statutes involved in this case are sec.885.37, Stats., and sec. 20.625, Stats.”
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.