CO Code § 13-90-204 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 90 - Witnesses|Part 2 - Appointment of Interpreters for Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing|§ 13-90-204. Appointment of Auxiliary Services Providers

  An appointing authority shall provide a qualified auxiliary services provider to interpret the proceedings to a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind and to interpret the statements of the person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind in the following instances:   When a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind is present and participating as the principal party of interest or a witness at any civil or criminal proceeding, including but not limited to any criminal or civil court proceeding in the state court system; a court-ordered or court-provided alternative dispute resolution, mediation, arbitration, or treatment; an administrative, commission, or agency hearing; or a hearing of a licensing authority of the state;    When a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind is involved in any stage of grand jury or jury proceedings as a potential or selected juror;    When a juvenile whose parent or parents are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind is brought before a court for any reason;    When a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind is arrested and taken into custody for an alleged violation of a criminal law of the state or any of its political subdivisions. Such appointment shall be made prior to any attempt to notify the arrestee of his or her constitutional rights and prior to any attempt to interrogate or to take a statement from the person; except that a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind and who is otherwise eligible for release shall not be held pending the arrival of a qualified interpreter.    (Deleted by amendment,L. 2006, p. 1088, § 4, effective May 25, 2006.)    When effective communication cannot be established without an auxiliary service and when an alleged victim or witness is a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind, who uses sign language for effective communication, and who is questioned or otherwise interviewed by a person having a law enforcement or prosecutorial function in any criminal investigation, except where the length, importance, or complexity of the communication does not warrant provision of an auxiliary service. Assessment of whether the length, importance, or complexity of the communication warrants provision of an auxiliary service shall be made in accordance with United States department of justice regulations effectuating Title II of the federal “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”, as from time to time may be amended, Pub.L. 101-336, codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101 et seq., including regulations, analysis, and technical assistance.    (Deleted by amendment,L. 2007, p. 2026, § 29, effective June 1, 2007.) (1.5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to provide less than is required by Title II of the federal “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”, as from time to time may be amended, Pub.L. 101-336, codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101 et seq., and its implementing regulations.       Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to preclude the use of services of an interpreter in civil proceedings.     History. Source: L. 87: Entire part R&RE, p. 571, § 1, effective April 23. L. 2006: (1) amended, p. 1088, § 4, effective May 25. L. 2007: (1)(f) and (1)(g) amended and (1.5) added, p. 2026, § 29, effective June 1. L. 2009: (1)(a) amended,(SB 09-144), ch. 219, p. 992, § 10, effective August 5. L. 2018: IP(1), (1)(a) to (1)(d), and (1)(f) amended,(HB 18-1108), ch. 303, p. 1834, § 4, effective August 8.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 13-90-201 as it existed prior to 1987.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 13-90-204 is similar to § 13-91-201 as it existed prior to the 1987 repeal and reenactment of this part 2, a relevant case construing that provision has been included in the annotations to this section.   Effect of violation of statute. Assuming that accuracy is the central purpose of the statute, if a qualified interpreter who was not appointed by a court was translating, the failure to appoint an interpreter should not result in suppression; but if the interpreter was not able to accurately communicate with the defendant, the defendant's statements must be suppressed. People v. Harper, 726 P.2d 1129 (Colo. 1986).   Definition of arrest. Whether a person is in custody turns on an objective assessment of whether a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have believed that he was free to leave the officer's presence, not on the officer's subjective state of mind. People v. Harper, 726 P.2d 1129 (Colo. 1986).   Only one interpreter required by statute, and defendant's assertion that second interpreter was necessary to assist communications between the defendant and his counsel because appointed interpreter was occupied with interpreting ongoing proceedings was without merit. People v. Hammons, 771 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1988), cert. denied, 785 P.2d 611 (Colo. 1990).   Police officer's request for blood or breath testing for alcohol is not interrogation because any person operating a motor vehicle must comply with breath and blood testing. Therefore, defendant is not entitled to a qualified interpreter or auxiliary service when a police officer requests a blood or breath sample as part of an investigation of driving under the influence. Shiplet v. Colo. Dept. of Rev., 266 P.3d 408 (Colo. App. 2011).