Accessing court services meaningfully for people with limited English proficiency (LEP) or sensory impairments is a top priority, including sight translation services which provide oral interpretation of standardized, routine written documents.

Omar Rodriguez was arrested for DUI and the high court rejected arguments that state law violated his equal protection rights.

1. Request an Interpreter

Though the full impact of forthcoming federal changes on language access laws remains to be seen, local and state agencies that receive federal funds should continue upholding people with limited English proficiency (LEP)’s legal right to request services in their primary languages from police departments, schools, hospitals and any other government-funded programs or services (such as accessing interpreters or translated documents).

Apart from providing legal protections, language access laws foster greater trust between governments and their citizens. When individuals can understand public health guidance, report crimes without fear of discrimination, enroll their children in school without discrimination and interact with local authorities without fear of discrimination, entire communities benefit. As such, many states have also passed language access laws beyond Title VI and EO 13166 such as Oregon’s requirement that all law enforcement departments have access to interpreters for officers as well as California’s legislation which permits private parties to bring disparate impact claims, expanding legal actions against violations.

2. Ask for a Translator

Non English speakers in Georgia have the right to request that police interview them with a translator present, however it often falls upon individual officers to decide if or when one will provide one during question and answer sessions. Unfortunately, police are often untrained at assessing language abilities of suspects and may be unaware of communication challenges many individuals experience due to speaking their native tongue.

Legal support for language access laws comes primarily from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent federal regulations and guidance, along with court rulings which establish this requirement that services that receive federal funding must provide access to services available in LEP languages.

Some states have implemented language access laws for State, county and city entities that apply across multiple languages. These laws typically mandate that agencies translating documents containing vital information (e.g. forms and policies) translate these for translation as well as create and implement language access plans.

3. Consult a Lawyer

An experienced DUI lawyer can assist in helping you understand the legal jargon used in court systems, explain criminal court procedures and recommend steps you can take right away to preserve your driving privileges.

Omar Rodriguez, a Spanish speaker who does not understand English, had no constitutional right to hear police read him an implied consent warning before administering breath and blood tests. His lawyers contended that Georgia law required police officers to obtain interpreters for hearing-impaired suspects but did not extend similar protections to non-English speakers.

Most Atlanta DUI cases are brought before the Municipal Court of Atlanta; however, you have the option of seeking a jury trial in Fulton County State Court instead. Should you opt for a bench trial instead of jury trial at your initial appearance (arraignment), an Atlanta DUI lawyer will appear for you and this does not breach your bond or bail conditions.

4. Ask Questions

Language Access in the US Since 1960s, language access has been recognized as a fundamental civil right. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and President Clinton’s Executive Order 13166 require entities receiving Federal funding (such as local governments agencies, schools, hospitals or doctor’s offices) to ensure meaningful access for LEP individuals participating in programs or activities funded with Federal funds.

Legal advocates have leveraged the Federal Language Access Laws to bring lawsuits against public entities that do not fulfill their linguistic access obligations. A 2001 Supreme Court decision significantly limited private rights of action under these language access laws by mandating that legal advocates prove intentional discrimination from an entity rather than simply disparate impact.

Although federal legal restrictions have hindered efforts to expand language access rights, state laws provide individuals and advocates greater opportunity for legal actions against noncompliance. California’s Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act and Cal. Code SS 11135 establish a private right of action similar to Title VI and EO 13166 that permits people and their advocates to bring discrimination claims based on national origin.