Vasquez stated that he had acted as an interpreter in municipal court but that he was not a certified interpreter. I have to think of the word. Vasquez further testified that Officer Johnson asked him to tell the appellant why he had been arrested and to advise appellant of his rights. Vasquez said that appellant indicated that he understood by saying that he did not rape the victim. All searches without a valid warrant are unreasonable, unless shown to be within one of the exceptions to the rule that a search must rest upon a valid warrant.
Consent is a justification for a warrantless search.
When the State claims that a search is justified by consent, it has the burden of proving that the consent was freely and voluntarily given and that there was no actual or implied duress or coercion. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, the appellate court makes an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances, and we reverse the decision only if it is clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 48 Ark. App. From our review of the totality of the circumstances, we hold that appellant did not freely and voluntarily consent to the search of his residence. The interpreter admittedly did not have a strong command of the English language, and we are convinced that he did not effectively communicate the officer's request for permission to search the residence.