2020 Georgia Code
Title 24 - Evidence
Chapter 6 - Witnesses
Article 3 - Use of Sign Language and Intermediary Interpreter in Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
§ 24-6-653. Procedure for Interrogation and Taking of Statements From Hearing Impaired Persons Arrested for Violation of Criminal Laws

1. An arresting law enforcement agency shall provide a qualified interpreter to any hearing impaired person whenever a hearing impaired person is arrested for allegedly violating any criminal law or ordinance of this state or any political subdivision thereof.
2. 1. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, no interrogation, warning, informing of rights, taking of statements, or other investigatory procedures shall be undertaken upon a hearing impaired person unless a qualified interpreter has been provided or the law enforcement agency has taken such other steps as may be reasonable to accommodate such person's disability. No answer, statement, admission, or other evidence acquired through the interrogation of a hearing impaired person shall be admissible in any criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings unless such was knowingly and voluntarily given. No hearing impaired person who has been taken into custody and who is otherwise eligible for release shall be detained because of the unavailability of a qualified interpreter.
   2. If a qualified interpreter is not available, an arresting officer may interrogate or take a statement from such person, provided that if the hearing impaired person cannot hear spoken words with a hearing aid or other sound amplification device, such interrogation and answers thereto shall be in writing and shall be preserved and turned over to the court in the event such person is tried for the alleged offense.

(Code 1981, §24-6-653, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)

- For casenote, "Rodriguez v. State: Addressing Georgia's Implied Consent Requirements for Non-English-Speaking Drivers," see 54 Mercer L. Rev. 1253 (2003).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Hearing impaired person arrested for driving under the influence was not entitled to a qualified interpreter before the person's rights under the implied consent law were conveyed to the person by the arresting officer. State v. Webb, 212 Ga. App. 872, 443 S.E.2d 630 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

- Qualified interpreter was required to be present to convey implied consent warnings and rights to an impaired person before any questioning or advice was given and an officer's giving the person an "implied consent card" to read and writing an explanation were not sufficient. Allen v. State, 218 Ga. App. 844, 463 S.E.2d 522 (1995) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

- When police have made a request for an interpreter and one has been provided, after the one-hour waiting period elapses, the police may proceed with their investigation under the implied consent laws. If, however, the impaired person intelligently waives the one-hour requirement, the police may proceed with written interrogatories and the person should answer in writing, and then the police may proceed under the implied consent law. Allen v. State, 218 Ga. App. 844, 463 S.E.2d 522 (1995) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

- DUI conviction was reversed when the arresting officer failed to comply with the statutory procedures for communicating with a hearing-impaired detainee because the requirements in the statute were mandatory, and if not met, the evidence acquired was not admissible under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103. Yates v. State, 248 Ga. App. 35, 545 S.E.2d 169 (2001) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Non hearing-impaired defendant's equal protection argument failed when the defendant could not meet the defendant's burden to show that former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103 was arbitrary or otherwise not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Sisson v. State, 232 Ga. App. 61, 499 S.E.2d 422 (1998), recons. denied; overruled on other grounds by State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 827 S.E.2d 865 (2019) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

- With regard to two defendants' convictions for murder, the defendants failed to show that the defendants received ineffective assistance of counsel based on the defendants' respective trial counsel failing to object to the presence of two sign language interpreters in the jury room as the trial court had the two interpreters take an oath swearing that, during jury deliberations, the interpreters would merely interpret and not interject the interpreters' personal opinions, conclusions, or comments. The defendants failed to present a shred of evidence that the interpreters did anything other than comply fully with the oath taken and that trial counsel had any reasons to suspect the interpreters did otherwise. Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 599, 669 S.E.2d 98 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

- When the arresting officer failed to comply with the procedure in former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103, such failure rendered blood test results inadmissible. State v. Woody, 215 Ga. App. 448, 449 S.E.2d 615 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

- Defendant's constitutional claims to the implied consent statutes were without merit since defendant, a Spanish speaking person, was not similarly situated to a hearing impaired person and, although similarly situated to an English-speaking person, there was a rational basis for requiring the implied consent warnings to be read in English. Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283, 565 S.E.2d 458 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

- Trial court did not err by admitting into evidence a statement defendant gave after the defendant had been arrested and was in custody because the interpreter's involvement in the interview was harmless as the defendant waived the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 24-6-653 when the defendant and counsel required the follow-up meeting, the written statement the defendant gave was not translated by the interpreter, both the defendant and counsel clearly stated that the defendant wanted to give the statement, and it was plain from the video recording that the statement was freely and voluntarily made. Harris v. State, 307 Ga. 657, 837 S.E.2d 777 (2020).