Poor translation leads to suppressed evidence

By Kris Olson

Justice Barbara Lenk

The inadequate rendering of Miranda warnings by a Spanish-speaking officer untrained in interpretation warranted the suppression not only of the fruits of the search of a murder defendant’s cellphone but also the cell site location information police later obtained using a warrant, the Supreme Judicial Court decided.

Defendant Pedro Vasquez quickly became the primary suspect in the shooting death of his girlfriend in January 2015.

After officers arrested Vasquez, they attempted to advise him of his Miranda rights but determined that he did not have much command of the English language.

The officer pressed into service to translate the Miranda warnings did so as follows:

“1. You have the right to remain quiet.

“2. Anything that you say can be against you ... the, of the court.

“3. You the right to consult with a lawyer for advice before being and to have him present with you during the interrogation.

“4. If you do not have the means to pay, to pay a, and if you wish for it, you the right to be a law, lawyer before being interrogated.

“5. If you decide to be now, without the presence of a lawyer, you still have the right to stop the, that any moment until you talk with a lawyer.”

Vasquez was then directed to initial each of the warnings on a printed Miranda form written in English, which he did.

The commonwealth argued that, notwithstanding the deficiencies in the translation, the totality of the circumstances suggested that Vasquez understood his rights. But the SJC disagreed.

“Although we have recognized that the translation of Miranda warnings into a defendant’s native language need not be ‘word for word,’ the translation cannot be so ‘misstated to the point of

being contradictory’ or equivocal,” Justice Barbara A. Lenk wrote for the court.

The commonwealth conceded that if the SJC concluded that the Miranda warnings were inadequate, the fruits of the search of Vasquez’s cellphone evidence must be suppressed.

But the court said that the problem with the translation also deprived the state of the requisite probable cause to obtain a search warrant for the CSLI.

“Ordinarily, police may be able to demonstrate the requisite nexus by connecting the defendant to ownership of a particular device and by showing a substantial basis that the device will contain relevant evidence of the crime — that is, the defendant’s location at or around the time the crime was committed,” Lenk wrote. “Here, however, when we remove from the calculus any tainted evidence contained within the affidavit in support of the application for a search warrant, such as the defendant’s disclosure of his telephone number, the Commonwealth has not met its burden with regard to establishing any such nexus.”

The state had also failed to demonstrate any connection between the commission of the crime and the 32 days for which it had sought the CSLI, the SJC concluded.

The 32-page decision is Commonwealth v. Vasquez, Lawyers Weekly No. 10-140-19. The full text of the ruling can be found here.