Attorney General Opinion No.
Background
- BIDS asks whether court-appointed interpreters are funded by the county where the proceeding occurs or by BIDS.
- The Interpreters for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Speech Impaired and Other than English Speaking Persons Act requires interpreters in certain court proceedings where confinement or penal sanction may result.
- Interpreters are appointed by the court for the benefit of the proceedings and due process; the court has discretion in appointing and evaluating interpreters.
- Fees for court-appointed interpreters are addressed by statute: courts may fix reasonable fees and must not charge the non-English or disabled person.
- A BIDS regulation caps interpreter compensation at $15 per hour unless a higher rate is advance-approved, shaping how costs may be covered.
- Two governing questions arise: whether interpreter fees are a court operation cost (county obligation) or a defense service cost (BIDS obligation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do court-appointed interpreter fees fall under costs of operation of the district court? | Osage County holding that counties fund district court operations. | Same as plaintiffs; interpretation costs are operating expenses. | Yes; counties fund court operation expenses, including interpreters. |
| If not, are interpreter costs authorized as a defense service funded by BIDS? | If necessary for adequate defense, courts authorize counsel to obtain interpreters; BIDS pays. | When necessary for defense, the district court authorizes services; BIDS bears cost if necessary and approved. | Yes; when properly authorized as a necessary defense service, BIDS pays. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pham, 234 Kan. 649 (1984) (standard for appellate review of court discretion in appointing interpreters)
- Board of County Commissioners of Osage County v. Burns, 242 Kan. 544 (1988) (county funding obligation for district court operation)
- State v. Calderon, 270 Kan. 241 (2000) (federal finance and access considerations in LEP contexts)
- State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252 (2009) (statutory construction: plain language and legislative intent)
- State v. Raschke, 289 Kan. 911 (2009) (parip material interpretation and reconciliation of statutes)