How cool is it that Google has this app called “Translate,” and anybody can get it right on, wait for it, their smartphone? Even a cop in Kansas.
Imagine you’re driving in a foreign country and a police officer stops you on the road. You don’t speak the cop’s language and they don’t speak yours, so a halting exchange ensues using a laptop and Google Translate. You’re not always sure what the officer is asking, and you end up agreeing to something you didn’t quite understand, and are arrested.
That’s what happened to Omar Cruz-Zamora, a Mexican native in the US on a legal visa, in Kansas last September.
Cruz-Zamora spoke Spanish. Kansas Highway Patrol Trooper Ryan Wolting did not. But Wolting had a smartphone and, boom, technology!
Based on a typed exchange using Google Translate, he agreed to let police search his car—he wasn’t legally required to—and was arrested for possession of 14 pounds of cocaine and methamphetamines.
Except he didn’t quite agree, because Google translate didn’t quite cut it.
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and lacking a warrant or probable cause, the officers required Cruz-Zamora to understand that he could refuse to let them search the car. That understanding is not evident from the exchange, during which both sides repeatedly fail to comprehend what the other is saying.
Not only that, but the actual translations provided by the app weren’t good enough to accurately communicate the question. For example, the officer asked “¿Puedo buscar el auto?” — the literal meaning of which is closer to “can I find the car,” not “can I search the car.” There’s no evidence that Cruz-Zamora made the connection between this “literal but nonsensical” translation and the real question of whether he consented to a search, let alone whether he understood that he had a choice at all.
Oops. It’s not as if Wolting didn’t try, or lied about getting consent. Certainly the officer can’t be blamed for not speaking Spanish. But then, neither can Cruz-Zamora be blamed for not speaking English. If he only spoke Norwegian, it would be the same, so calm down.
Tech may offer quick and easy answers when nothing important is at stake, but constitutional rights demand a bit more precision, a bit greater reliability.
Providers of machine translation services would have us all believe that those translations are accurate enough to use in most cases, and that in a few years they will replace human translators in all but the most demanding situations. This case suggests that machine translation can fail even the most basic tests, and as long as that possibility remains, we have to maintain a healthy skepticism.
And Judge Carlos Murguia in the District of Kansas had just the right amount of healthy skepticism.
Gardner testified that while “¿Puedo buscar el auto?” is a literally correct interpretation, it is not the question Wolting intended to ask defendant. Gardner noticed several other instances in the video where Google Translate provided a literal but nonsensical translation. For example, at one point, Wolting likely asked defendant about his driver’s license and defendant responded “Do you have a driver for the license?” as if he was repeating the question as translated. And while defendant could guess the intent of the question, Gardner felt that because Google Translate sometimes provides literal but nonsensical translations, it is not a reliable tool
for interpretations.
There have long been issues raised by problematic idioms in translations. I’ve enjoyed playing the “who said that” game with prosecutors for decades, as the Spanish translation calls for an identity such as “friend” or “cousin” rather than a name. After a few frustrating attempts, as the prosecutor gets increasingly furious in front of the jury to suggest that the witness is concealing the truth, I offer in a stage whisper, “why don’t you ask him ‘como se llama,” to which the witness happily provides the name sought and the prosecutor is humiliated for his ignorance and clueless outrage. Good fun.
And this is with the use of human interpreters, who can be great or awful. Some will “fix” questions when they believe it’s been asked in a way that won’t elicit the answer desired. Some will fix answers as well. Some do absolutely straight translations, that produce bizarre and unintended results. Hey, that’s life on trial.
But Google translate? It’s perfect for ordering lunch or amusing your friends at parties. When it comes to affording defendants their constitutional rights, it’s not good enough.
It doesn’t mean that consent is impossible via Google Translate or any other app — for example, if Cruz-Zamora had himself opened his trunk or doors to allow the search, that likely would have constituted consent. But it’s clear that app-based interactions are not a sure thing. This will be a case to consider not just for cops on the beat looking to help or investigate people who don’t speak English, but in courts as well.
Translations have long been a vexing problem for cops and courts. Maybe Wolting could have called another cop who spoke Spanish. Maybe he just wasn’t in a position to get valid consent. Regardless, Google Translate wasn’t sufficient to overcome suppression. Apesta ser tú.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
SHG,
On the flip side, many mules speak, write and understand English perfectly except when they don’t. Our understandable desire to protect the rights of those who do not speak English can be carried to silly extremes particularly when dealing with drug traffickers.
Take the completely idiotic reversal by the Ninth Circuit in an opinion written by Judge Reinhardt (who would have guessed), with one judge dissenting, that found no informed formal affirmative waiver of an interpreter required resentencing. See US v. Murguia-Rodriguez, 815 F. 3d 566 (9th Cir. 2016). The defendant was mulling 60 kilograms of marijuana in the truck that he had been driving. Law enforcement officers also found 45 rounds of .32 caliber ammunition in that vehicle.
At sentencing, the following exchange between the defendant and the federal district judge took place:
MR. BOURS: Good morning, your Honor.
Ricardo Bours on behalf of Adalberto
Murguia-Rodriguez.
THE COURT: Good morning. And Mr.
Murguia-Rodriguez, just before the case was
called the interpreter indicated that you had
indicated you prefer to proceed in the English
language this morning. Is that correct, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Correct, ma’am.
THE COURT: All right, so you’re
comfortable conducting these proceedings in
English today?
THE DEFENDANT: Oh, yes, I am, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Do you want the interpreter to
remain in case you have any difficulties, or is
it okay with you if she leaves the courtroom?
THE DEFENDANT: She can stay.
THE COURT: But do you need her — she has
other duties. Do you need her to stay, or do
you feel comfortable proceeding in English?
THE DEFENDANT: I feel comfortable
proceeding in English.
THE COURT: All right. Then thank you, Ms.
Garcia. You may be excused. And Mr. Bours,
if you want to come on up with your client,
and we’ll proceed with sentencing.
The defendant allocuted in English at the sentencing, expressed regret for his actions, expressed concern for his family, and promised to rehabilitate. By the way, it was undisputed that the defendant was born in Mexico but relocated to the United States when he was a young child. He has lived in Arizona, Wisconsin, California, and Nevada. He attended high school through at least the 11th grade in Tucson, Arizona, where he played football. He has been married and had several children. He had worked at a carwash, construction companies, and restaurants. He had owned cars and had credit accounts. He had four adult siblings who also lived in the United States. Unsurprisingly, the evidence established that he was bilingual and literate in both Spanish and English.
In short, I envision the defendant saying with a grin, “lo siento, no hablo inglés” (adding in a mutter: “cara de culo”).
Todo lo mejor.
RGK
It happens, but having had the distinct pleasure of a great many (numbering in the thousands?) conversations with Hispanic defendants who believed they spoke English well enough, my experience is that many overestimate their ability to comprehend English, particularly nuance, and have no reason to be familiar with legal words in a second language. They may be able to speak English well enough to order dinner, but their English isn’t adequate to have a meaningful conversation with their lawyer. Or the cops or the court.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve talked with clients who nodded dutifully, would never complain, but had no real clue what I was saying.
SHG,
I agree, sorta. When there is a serious doubt, then we need to employ competent interpreters.
The District of Nebraska’s interpreter is a lawyer trained in her home country of Costa Rica (JD cum laude) with Master’s Degree in International Law and Legal Studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science. She served as First Secretary of the Embassy of Costa Rica in Sweden. She speaks English, Spanish, French, Swedish and a smattering of other languages. She is a marvel. Indeed, part of her job is to provide telephonic interpretation via the federal judiciary’s telephonic interpreter program (TIP) for federal courts throughout the nation.
The foregoing said I don’t like being played for a chump. All the best.
RGK
If I could pick the interpreter, I would much prefer a Dominican former drug dealer. A less elegant pedigree, but a more accurate translation.
Did I ever mention that my children’s great, great, great grandfather was president of Costa Rica from 1890 to 1894?
SHG,
No, you didn’t. Amazing. I’m very impressed. And, may I add, that your distinguished pedigree reaffirms Governor Rickett’s decision to bestow upon you the Admiralship. (We shall not mention that you face a risk of deportation.)
All the best.
RGK
Wow, @ me next time.
Don’t forget horses, Judge K.
Jim,
Ah. Yet, a horse of a different color?
All the best.
RGK
Like a bad Month Python skit. The defendant was lucky he didn’t ask the officer to shoot him.