§ 611.32

State v. Lopez-Ramos · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Farrah · 2007 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Sanchez-Diaz · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Dominguez-Ramirez · 1997 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Mitjans · 1987 1 citation

On the other hand, we do not believe the legislature contemplated that a bilingual police officer should serve as an interpreter, as Officer Globa did during the second part of the interrogation. This part of the interrogation presented what we earlier referred to as the “typical” situation presupposed by the legislature — the situation in which there is a need for the officer’s questions to be translated by a third party to the suspect and for the suspect’s responses to be translated by a third party to the officer. In such a situation the statute requires the police to obtain a qualified interpreter “to assist [the defendant] throughout the interrogation or taking of a statement.” Minn. Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2. However qualified he or she is to act as an interpreter, a police officer is not the sort *830 of independent interpreter the legislature intended would assist the suspect throughout the interrogation. 2

State v. Lopez-Ramos · 2018 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas Karnowski · 2017 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Kail · 2009 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Al-Naseer · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Yang · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Marin · 1996 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

Warner v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1993 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Perez · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Mitjans · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.