Opinion ID: 1475144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Motion to Suppress Statements

Text: Mr. Mesa argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police. He claims that the trial court violated the Interpreter Act by not providing a qualified interpreter within the meaning of the Act, which he maintains it could not do because the Office of Interpreter Services called for by the Act has never been established. He further contends that even though he signed a waiver form his waiver did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Interpreter[ ] Act, [since he] did not consult with an attorney as required, and it was not approved by an appointing authority. In the alternative, he asserts that the Act was violated because the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) paid for the interpreters assigned to him. Furthermore, he claims that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his Miranda rights. The government maintains that the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Mesa's motion to suppress his statements because he was twice informed that he had the statutory right to have the Miranda protections `explained' to him `through a qualified interpreter listed by the office of interpreter services.' Mr. Mesa, who had no difficulty reading and understanding the English language, read a document explaining his right to a qualified interpreter, and then the right was signed to him [in American Sign Language] by the full-time Gallaudet interpreters. The government counters Mr. Mesa's argument concerning the non-existence of the Office of Interpreter Services by referencing this court's decision in Ko v. United States, 722 A.2d 830, 835 (D.C.1998) (en banc), where we determined that, as far as the D.C. Courts are concerned, the functions of that statutorily-mentioned office are now carried out by the D.C. Courts' Office of Court Interpreting Services (OCIS) which maintains a list of qualified interpreters. Furthermore, the government insists that Mr. Mesa knowingly and voluntarily declined the services of a `qualified interpreter' (as that term is defined by the Interpreter Act), his written waiver was valid, and the trial court properly construed the Interpreter Act. Moreover, the interpreters provided to Mr. Mesa were full-time Gallaudet employees, not employees or agents of the MPD. And, the government asserts that Mr. Mesa knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional rights.