The Constitutional rights embodied in the Miranda warnings are quite familiar to most living in the United States. To non-English speaking suspects, however, the Miranda warnings mean nothing, absent a plainly worded and accurate translation in the suspect’s native language. Even to suspects that have some English proficiency or are given a translation in the suspect’s native language, Miranda warnings could still lack meaning, if they hail from countries in which the Miranda rights are completely foreign or that have cultures of unquestioned deference to authorities. Indeed, there are many cultures, like the one in which I was raised, where education and English proficiency are highly valued and shame is associated with admitting to not having understood seemingly basic English words. But the words in a Miranda warning are far from basic; they have significant and complicated meanings that are rooted in American culture. Even I, a native English speaker, found the terms difficult to understand before becoming a lawyer. How much more difficult is it for a non-native English speaker who does not understand legal concepts and implications of, for example, the “right to remain silent,” “waiver,” and “consent”? Still, many respond in the affirmative when asked if they understand and consent to questioning and waive their rights, even if they failed to comprehend the words being communicated to them.
The Constitutional rights set forth in Miranda warnings necessarily must be conveyed in “clear and unequivocal language.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 466 (1966). Federal law requires that law enforcement departments address language barriers and provide services to suspects with limited English proficiency.1 But policies and practices of police departments regarding non- or limited-English speaking suspects and translation services vary depending on a variety of factors, including the communities they serve, frequency of contacts with individuals with limited English proficiency, and resources available them.2
