The Iowa Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Plu Reh for operating while intoxicated (OWI), a second offense. The court ruled that police made reasonable efforts to communicate with Reh, who requested an interpreter fluent in his native language, Karenni, during his arrest. This ruling is significant as it addresses the challenges faced by non-English speakers in legal situations and the responsibilities of law enforcement in such cases.
Reh's case began when he was pulled over by police in Urbandale, Iowa, for traffic violations. During the stop, officers administered field sobriety tests, which Reh was able to understand and perform, despite showing signs of intoxication. The officers believed Reh could understand English but was not a native speaker. Reh had lived in the United States for ten years, which may have contributed to his ability to follow instructions in English.
After the initial stop, police took Reh to the county jail, where he requested a Karenni interpreter for the implied consent advisory. However, officers were unable to find a Karenni interpreter. Reh then indicated he could communicate in Burmese, and officers provided the advisory through a Burmese interpreter. Reh signed the consent forms after the advisory was interpreted. However, he later sought to suppress the results of his breath test, which indicated he was more than twice the legal limit for alcohol.
The district court, presided over by Judge Brendan Greiner, ruled that the police had acted reasonably in their efforts to convey the implied consent advisory to Reh. The court noted that video evidence showed Reh responding appropriately to the officers' questions and instructions in English. The court emphasized that the key issue was whether the police made reasonable efforts to communicate with Reh, given the circumstances.
The court stated, "The police acted reasonably considering the unavailability of a Karenni interpreter, the time-sensitive nature of the breath test, and the unknown capability of Reh's 'friend' as translator." This ruling allowed Reh's breath test results to stand, leading to his conviction for OWI.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's findings de novo, meaning they assessed the case from the beginning while giving deference to the lower court's factual findings. The court reiterated that the test for determining whether police made reasonable efforts to communicate with a non-English speaking defendant includes the defendant's apparent understanding of English and the availability of interpreters.
The court ruled, "No case law requires an officer to affirmatively engage less reliable methods of translation—like an automated internet service or Reh's 'friend'—and we are not inclined to adopt such a rule for the first time." This statement reinforces the idea that law enforcement is not obligated to seek out every possible translation method, particularly if they have already made reasonable efforts to communicate.
The ruling has implications for future cases involving language barriers in legal situations. It highlights the importance of effective communication between law enforcement and individuals who may not speak English fluently. The decision may serve as a precedent for similar cases, where defendants claim their rights were violated due to language barriers during police interactions.
Going forward, this ruling may encourage law enforcement agencies to ensure they have appropriate resources and training to handle situations involving non-English speakers. It may also prompt discussions about the need for improved access to interpreters in legal contexts, especially in states with diverse populations.
As for the next steps, Reh has the option to appeal this ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending. The outcome of this case could influence how courts view similar situations involving language barriers and the responsibilities of law enforcement in communicating with non-English speakers.