Vol. VII, No. 1 - Winter 1998

Drugs Suppressed on Linguistic Issue

You are the interpreter at a suppression hearing where an agent testifies that he spoke in the language of the defendant to obtain consent to search his person and belongings. When asked to write down the exact words he spoke to the defendant, the agent uses a verb in the form of a command rather than a request, although according to his testimony, he was requesting consent. What should a court interpreter do, if anything? Interpreters in the Southern District of New York were recently faced with this very situation. The account of what followed is taken from Southern District Judge John F. Keenan’s Opinion and Order in the case of U.S. v. Roldan, 978 Cr. 567, granting the motion to suppress as evidence cocaine found on Roldan, a native of Puerto Rico:

“During the lunch recess, one of the two certified court interpreters on this case... approached the Court’s deputy clerk and requested to speak with the Court. Upon the Court’s agreement to see her in the robing room, she informed the Court that the literal meaning of the word busquemos, the word used by Agent McAleer, is ‘let’s look for it.’ Immediately after the lunch recess, the Court placed the substance of this conversation on the record and asked if both certified court interpreters... agreed that busquemos means ‘let’s look for it?’ Both court interpreters responded ‘yes.’ Towards the end of the hearing defense counsel made further inquiry of both court interpreters regarding the literal meaning of hablemos contigo, as well as busquemos, as used by Agent McAleer in speaking with the Defendant. [One interpreter] stated that the phrase ¿hablemos contigo? as written by McAleer on Defense Exhibit A is in the imperative form as opposed to the interrogative form. [She] also stated that ¿busquemos en su bolsa? as written by McAleer...is in the imperative form as well. When asked whether the imperative form means ‘an order or a direction,’ [the interpreter] responded ‘that’s correct.’ [She] also stated that the use of the question marks on each side of ¿hablemos contigo? and ¿busquemos en su bolsa?, as written by Mc Aleer was grammatically incorrect. [The other interpreter] stated that she agreed with [the first interpreter’s] testimony.

Upon the Government’s request, on October 1, 1997 the Court reopened the evidentiary hearing to allow the Government to elicit testimony from [another] Spanish interpreter [who] testified that both hablemos and busquemos were exhortations rather than commands. However, she did state that hablemos contigo means ‘[w]e want to speak to you,’ and that busquemos en su bolsa means ‘let’s look in your bag.’

The Court concludes that while Agent McAleer believed that he was asking the Defendant if he was willing to speak with the agents, in actuality Agent McAleer told the Defendant in the imperative form that the agents wanted to talk to him. Indeed, the Defendant testified the he understood McAleer to have said to him, ‘We want to talk to you.’ The Court also concludes that while Agent McAleer believed that he was asking the Defendant if he consented to a search of his bag, in actuality Agent McAleer told the Defendant in the imperative form ‘Let’s look in your bag.’ The Court believes that the testimony of all three interpreters supports this finding. However, to the degree that there was conflicting testimony between the two court interpreters and [the third interpreter], the Court accepts the version of the two official court interpreters ... The Court found the testimony [of the third interpreter] to be often confusing and, at times, internally inconsistent.” The Government bears the burden of proving that ‘consent [to a search] was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.’... This case turns upon the fact that [the agent's] use of the imperative form in speaking to Roldan, which this Court finds to be a signficant and inacceptable error, created a coercive atmosphere pursuant to which the Defendant acquiesced to a search under the reasonable belief that he was not free to withhold consent to the search... This Court concludes... it was [the agent's] significant error that caused Defendant to act in a manner which [the agent] interpreted as consent, but was in reality the Defendant's indication of his submission to police authority.”