oag9-08

  When a forfeiture is imposed . . . the action may be brought for the highest sum specified, plus costs, fees, and surcharges imposed under ch. 814; and judgment may be rendered for such sum as the court or jury shall assess or determine to be proportionate to the offense.

  As discussed above, there does not appear to be any authority within Wis. Stat. ch. 814 to impose courtroom interpreter compensation as a cost, fee, or surcharge upon any party to litigation including a defendant in a civil forfeiture action.

4. In a municipal court, can the cost of an interpreter be taxed as a cost under §800.09?

  Wisconsin Stat. § 800.09(1),[7] like Wis. Stat. § 778.06, permits the taxation of “costs, fees, and surcharges imposed under ch. 814” on a defendant found guilty in a municipal court. As before, the lack of any clear language in Wis. Stat. ch. 814 classifying interpreter costs as a cost, fee, or surcharge, coupled with the public expense language of Wis. Stat. § 885.83(3) renders Wis. Stat. § 800.09 unavailable as a method for charging back the costs of necessary courtroom interpreters.

5. Can the court tax unreimbursed interpreter travel costs?

  and

6. Can the court tax the amount that is reimbursed by the state – the first $30 or $40 per hour?

  Wisconsin Stat. § 885.83(3) as amended provides that, when a person has limited English proficiency and an interpreter is necessary, the court is to advise the qualified individual that he or she has a right to an interpreter at the public’s expense. This language, coupled with the fact that no other statutory language exists providing taxation of the costs for necessary interpreters, precludes courts from taxing unreimbursed or reimbursed interpreter costs whether for travel or compensation.

7. For any of these questions, does it matter if the defendant is indigent or not?

  As noted above, the prior version of Wis. Stat. § 885.38(8), provided for the provision of necessary interpreters only where the qualified individual was indigent or could not afford one. These clauses were deleted from the statute, demonstrating the Legislature’s intent to provide this service at public expense regardless of ability to pay. Federal civil rights laws also do not make such a distinction. Thus, for any of the questions you have posed, it does not matter if the defendant is indigent or not. If a court interpreter is necessary, then the county must assume the expense.

            Sincerely,

           

            J.B. Van Hollen

            Attorney General

JBVH:JSL:ajw:rk

1

  As amended by 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, sec. 3773.

2

  As amended by 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, sec. 3774.

3

  The report may be found at http://wicourts.gov/services/interpreter/docs/newsreport00.pdf (last visited 9/18/2008).

4

  Deb Brescoll, Budget and Policy Officer, Director of State Court’s Office to Robert Nelson, Senior Attorney, Legislative Reference Bureau (August 22, 2006), at 2 (“The Circuit Courts requests [sic] the following statutory language modifications in order to require the appointment of court interpreters in all cases regardless of indigency and to authorize state reimbursement for county interpreter costs related to non-indigents.”). The report is part of the drafting record for 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, sec. 3773.

5

  See Department of Justice Memorandum Regarding Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency (October 26, 2001) available at http:/www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/13166.htm (last visited 9/18/2008).

6

  See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, Title VI, § 601, 78 Stat. 252 (1964).

7

  Wisconsin Stat. § 800.09(1): “If a municipal court finds a defendant guilty, it may render judgment by ordering restitution . . . plus costs, fees, and surcharges imposed under ch. 814.”