By Nicole Black
BridgeTower Media Newswires
Technological advances over the past decade have occurred at an unprecedented rate. As a result, there have been drastic improvements in machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies in recent years, making many science fiction fantasies a newfound reality. A great example of this is Google Translate, a tool that instantly translates speech.
Within the last few years, Google Translate has become widely available as a free online and mobile app and provides the immediate ability to translate words, both spoken and written, from one language to another. Because it’s so easily accessible, it should come as no surprise that it was recently used by law enforcement to interact with a suspect, resulting in a case that addressed an interesting constitutional question. Specifically, earlier this month, in U.S. v. Cruz-Zamora the United States Court for the District of Kansas considered the issue of whether a non-English speaking individual can consent via Google Translate to a search of his car by law enforcement.
The case arose from a traffic stop, initiated because of the defendant’s suspended registration. At the beginning of the encounter, the officer realized that the defendant spoke very little English. He then moved the defendant to his patrol vehicle and began to communicate with him using Google Translate via his car’s laptop. While speaking to him using Google Translate, the defendant allegedly gave the officer permission to search his vehicle, which the officer did, leading to the discovery of illegal drugs.
The defendant later alleged that the search was unconstitutional. During the suppression hearing, the officer admitted a live translator would have been preferable but none were available. He also admitted the defendant didn’t always understand his questions.
Two professional interpreters also testified at the hearing; after reviewing the video and audio recordings of the encounter, both opined it was clear the defendant was often confused when responding to questions and didn’t always seem to understand what was being asked of him. They also testified Google Translate failed to take context into consideration and thus “should only be used for literal word-for-word translations.”
In its opinion, the Court initially explained it was the defendant’s contention that “any evidence obtained as a result of the car search should be suppressed because he did not understand (the officer) and therefore could not knowingly consent to the search.”
Next, the court determined, based primarily on the testimony of the professional interpreters, that “while it might be reasonable for an officer to use Google Translate to gather basic information such as the defendant’s name or where the defendant was travelling (sic), the court does not believe it is reasonable to rely on the service to obtain consent to an otherwise illegal search.”
The Court explained that although the audio and video recordings of the encounter showed the defendant had a basic understanding of the questions asked of him, the testimony of the interpreters and a review of the transcript indicated the defendant’s purported consent to search was invalid. The Court concluded it did “not find the government ha(d) met its burden to show defendant’s consent was ‘unequivocal and specific and freely and intelligently given.’’
Next, the court turned to an alternative argument made by the government: that the good faith exception applied, and thus the evidence should not be suppressed. Specifically, the government contended the officer acted in good faith since he reasonably relied on Google Translate and its translations. In opposition, the defendant asserted the officer could not “reasonably rely on a mistake of his own making.”
The Court agreed with the defense, and excluded the evidence:
“(T)he good-faith exception does not apply as it is not reasonable for an officer to use and rely on Google Translate to obtain consent to a warrantless search, especially when an officer has other options for more reliable translations. The government has not met its burden to show defendant’s consent was “unequivocal and specific and freely and intelligently given,” ... and the court will not interpret defendant’s compliance with Wolting’s instructions to stand by the side of the road during the search as implied consent, considering the totality of the circumstances. The court finds that application of the exclusionary rule is appropriate in this case, and therefore grants defendant’s motion to suppress.”
The lesson to be learned is that while the technology has dramatically improved in recent years, it’s often far from perfect. Tools like Google Translate are improving by leaps and bounds, but it is ill-advised to indiscriminately relying on them when comprehension is crucial and carries legal ramifications. Technology is not a panacea; it merely supplements hard-earned technical skills and expertise — it doesn’t replace them.
————
Nicole Black is a director at MyCase.com, Reach her at niki@mycase.com.
