J.B. VAN HOLLEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Raymond P. Taffora
Deputy Attorney General
114 East, State Capitol
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
608/266-1221
TTY 1-800-947-3529
October 24, 2008 OAG—9A—08
ReStartDirector of State Courts
16 East, State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702 BodyStart You have asked whether the recently amended Wis. Stat. § 885.38(3), providing for court interpreters at public expense, permits the state courts to tax interpreter costs upon parties to litigation. It is my opinion that, by amending the statute, the Legislature intended for the courts to provide necessary interpreters for both the hearing impaired and for those of limited English proficiency regardless of their ability to pay, and that courts may not tax the parties for these costs. RELEVANT STATUTES
If the court determines that the person has limited English proficiency and that an interpreter is necessary, the court shall advise the person that he or she has the right to a qualified interpreter at the public’s expense if the person is one of the following [party, witness, alleged victim, parent of a minor party, legal guardian, a person affected by the proceedings if determined appropriate by the court.]
Except as provided in par. (b), the necessary expenses of providing qualified interpreters to persons with limited English proficiency under this section shall be paid as follows:
1. The county in which the circuit court is located shall pay the expenses in all proceedings before a circuit court and when the clerk of circuit court uses a qualified interpreter under sub. (3)(d). The county shall be reimbursed as provided in s. 758.19(8) for expenses paid under this subdivision. 2. The court of appeals shall pay the expenses in all proceedings before the court of appeals.
3. The supreme court shall pay the expenses in all proceedings before the supreme court.
(b) The state public defender shall pay the expenses for interpreters assisting the state public defender in representing an indigent person in preparing for court proceedings.
“Limited English proficiency” means any of the following:
1. The inability, because of the use of a language other than English, to adequately understand or communicate effectively in English in a court proceeding.
2. The inability, due to a speech impairment, hearing loss, deafness, deaf-blindness, or other disability, to adequately hear, understand, or communicate effectively in English in a court proceeding.
Except as provided . . . when allowed costs shall be as follows . . . (2) Disbursements. All the necessary disbursements and fees allowed by law; the compensation of referees; a reasonable disbursement for the service of process . . . amounts actually paid out for certified and other copies of papers and records in any public office; postage, photocopying, telephoning, electronic communications, facsimile transmissions, and express or overnight delivery; depositions including copies; plats and photographs . . . an expert witness fee not exceeding $300 for each expert who testifies, exclusive of the standard witness fee and mileage which shall also be taxed for each expert; and . . . an abstract of title to the lands. Guardian ad litem fees shall not be taxed as a cost or disbursement.
DISCUSSION
The obligation to provide in-court interpreters at public expense for criminal defendants originated in State v. Neave, 117 Wis. 2d 359, 375, 344 N.W.2d 181 (1984). This obligation was codified in the statutes shortly thereafter in 1985 Wisconsin Act 266. See Appointment of an Interpreter in State v. Tai V. Le, 184 Wis. 2d 860, 868, 517 N.W.2d 144 (1994). But there was little explicit guidance then as to who would ultimately bear the costs and in what circumstances. Nor was the obligation extended to non-criminal cases. As you note in your opinion request, the Wisconsin Supreme Court subsequently asked the Legislature to amend the interpreter statute to provide interpreters at public expense, beginning with budget submissions in 2001, for individuals with limited English proficiency in both criminal and civil matters. The request specifically asked that all necessary interpreters be provided at public expense “without requiring that the participant be indigent as part of a basic right to court access.” See Report to the Director of State Courts, Improving Interpretation in Wisconsin’s Courts (October 2000), at 6. See also Director of State Court’s memorandum, Statutory Change Requests for the Courts’ 2007-2009 Biennial Budget Submission. Interpretations by an agency that sponsors or is charged with implementing legislation may be considered as persuasive authority. Appointment of an Interpreter, 184 Wis. 2d at 868-69. Because it is clear that the Legislature acted as the Court itself requested, it is my opinion that necessary interpreters must be provided at public expense as a matter of Wisconsin law.
The relevant portion of the amendment to Wis. Stat. § 885.38(3)(a) reads as follows: In criminal proceedings and in proceedings under ch.48, 51, 55, or 938, if If the court determines that the person has limited English proficiency and that an interpreter is necessary, the court shall advise the person that he or she has the right to a qualified interpreter and that, if the person cannot afford one, an interpreter will be provided at the public’s expense if the person is one of the following [party, witness, alleged victim, parent of a minor party, legal guardian, a person affected by the proceedings if determined appropriate by the court.] When the Legislature amends a statute, it is presumed to have full knowledge of existing statutes. Murphy v. LIRC, 183 Wis. 2d 205, 218, 515 N.W.2d 487 (Ct. App. 1994). Here, the Legislature removed prior language that had limited publicly paid and provided interpreters to indigent persons in criminal, juvenile, mental health, and protective services proceedings. The term “indigent” was also deleted from Wis. Stat. § 885.38(8)(a). The Legislature’s action in striking this limiting language indicates its intention to provide for publicly financed court interpreters whenever the court determines that one is necessary. This interpretation is consistent with federal law protecting the rights of the hearing impaired. As you know, the Americans With Disabilities Act requires reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals in the provision of government services, and that those accommodations be provided at public expense. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101-13 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(f) (2007). Courts cannot require that hearing impaired individuals bear the cost of necessary interpretation. See id.
Likewise, the United States Department of Justice (“USDOJ”) has opined that courts (as recipients of federal funding) are responsible to provide language services for those of limited English proficiency at public expense in courtroom proceedings where significant liberties are at stake. The USDOJ reasons that charging persons of limited English proficiency for necessary court interpretation services would have the effect of discriminating against them because of their national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Provision of necessary courtroom interpreters, at public expense, is thus required by Wis. Stat. § 885.38(3) and this interpretation is consistent with federal law. A trial judge does have considerable discretion in implementing the statutory requirements, because the judge determines whether an interpreter is necessary in a given case. For a criminal defendant, it is likely that interpreter services will be considered necessary. There may be many other cases, however, where interpreter services are not necessary either because of the nature of the suit or because there are reasonable, less expensive alternatives available. RESPONSE TO ENUMERATED QUESTIONS
1. For a criminal case, can the difference [between the actual cost of interpretation and the state reimbursement rate] be taxed to the defendant as a cost under §973.06(1)(c)?
