Two other cases illustrate that without the assistance of an interpreter at the time of an arrest, a deaf person may often spend excessive time in jail and be unaware of a right to counsel and to post bail. Sometimes, a deaf person may even be unaware of the charges.
For example, Oklahoma state law requires that interpreters be provided to deaf defendants upon arrest. In one instance, however, a deaf man arrested for a misdemeanor was in jail for two days without being given an interpreter. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the state law applies to city police departments and that because the deaf man could not understand his rights or communicate with those who could help him, he was forced to stay in jail longer than a hearing person would have stayed in the same situation. The city was found to be in violation of Section 504.
In another case, Joseph Serio alleged that the city of Milwaukee and its police officers violated Section 504 by failing to provide an interpreter throughout the course of his arrest and subsequent processing. The officers were investigating Serio's alleged violation of an anti-harassment restraining order that had been secured by his former girlfriend. When the officers went to Serio's home, they unsuccessfully attempted to communicate with him through his hearing son. The officers then attempted to communicate with Serio through the use of written notes. This also proved unsuccessful. Serio asked for an interpreter, but the request was denied. The police officers arrested him for violating the restraining order and took him to jail. He made at least one written request for an interpreter, but an interpreter was never provided.
Serio was released on bail the next day. He sued the City of Milwaukee and the officers, claiming that they violated Section 504 by failing to provide an interpreter. A jury awarded Serio $65,000 for compensatory damages and $90,000 for punitive damages. A Wisconsin appeals court affirmed, finding "credible evidence was presented to the jury that at several points during his arrest and processing Serio requested an . . . interpreter [and] the City never provided one." The court specifically rejected the city's arguments that it was entitled to a new trial. The city had contended that interpreters were present during the trial, making the jury unfairly sympathetic to Serio and that the excessive punitive damage award was not "in the interest of justice." Back to the Newsletter