CHICAGO (CN) — A three-judge appellate panel heard oral arguments Friday over whether police in two Wisconsin cities were justified in using a child as an interpreter during the arrest of her deaf mother.
Renee Lange, the mother in question, was arrested in 2016 when police in Oconto responded to a noise complaint centered on Lange's home.
The police, none of whom were deaf or able to communicate in sign language, relied on Lange's minor daughter to interpret for them. When Lange still could not understand the police despite her daughter's efforts, she became agitated. Police took her agitation as cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct, and this is where the parties' interpretation of events diverges.
Lange's attorneys allege in a federal lawsuit filed in 2018 that the police should have requested an American Sign Language interpreter immediately after realizing that she was deaf and communicated primarily in sign language. Relying on a child made the breakdown of communication the police's own fault and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to boot, the lawsuit claims.
The Oconto police, on the other hand, say that because Lange did not immediately request an interpreter, they were not bound to provide one. Police from the neighboring city of Oconto Falls would take a similar position during several encounters with Lange and her family throughout 2017.
In a September 2020 trial, a federal jury in Green Bay agreed with the police's interpretation of events. It was this position that Richard Carlson, attorney for both police departments, advanced again before a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit on Friday.
"The police are not required to provide an interpreter for every interaction. Whether an interpreter or other communication aid is required depends on the needs of the requesting individual... The ADA requires the express choice of the disabled should be given primary consideration in determining which communication aid to provide," Carlson said.
He went on to say that Lange, in her multiple interactions with the police even before the 2016 arrest, demonstrated "significant communication abilities," including communicating with pen and paper and by lip reading. For this reason, he argued, Lange did not require - and initially did not ask for - a professional interpreter.
"Officers had numerous interactions with Ms. Lange where effective communication was solely by written notes and nothing else," Carlson said.
Lange's attorneys painted these arguments as the police departments trying to pass the buck for their allegedly negligent and discriminatory behavior.
"These people didn't even attempt to call for an interpreter on any of these occasions, and so to give them a pass because they were not prepared... despite this law being on the books for 30 years, is not what should be excused," one of Lange's attorneys, Andrew Rozynski, told the panel.
Reyna Lubin, Lange's other attorney, argued the ADA includes considerations for children facilitating communication between private citizens and a public entity. In all cases but "imminent emergencies," it is usually forbidden.
"When an interpreter is needed to communicate effectively, public entities may not rely on minor children... absent an imminent emergency. There are at least three rationales that support the department's rule," Lubin said. "First, interpreting may expose minor children to sensitive adult subject matter that is not appropriate. Second, it may place these children in an inappropriate position vis-à-vis their adult relatives and may be a request that is difficult for the child to decline. And third, the children may lack impartiality or specialized vocabulary that is necessary to provide effective communication, which is the obligation of the public entity."
On these grounds, Lubin argued that even if Lange chose to use her minor daughter to interpret for her, the ADA's rules against using children as interpreters should have superseded that decision.
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, a George W. Bush appointee, expressed doubt with Lubin's interpretation of the ADA. She said that there were internal tensions in the law that rendered it more amenable to public bodies like the police than Lubin alleged.
"It says the police officers shouldn't rely on a minor child except in an emergency, but they need not interfere in a private citizen's decision to use a minor child. So it's permissive," Sykes said.
Lubin pushed back against Sykes, saying that when Lange was arrested, it was in a specific, non-emergency circumstance - over disorderly conduct and a noise complaint, when only a child of dubious interpretation ability was present. Thus, she said, the law was clear and police should have followed it by using an interpreter.
"It's, in fact, a very narrow and defined and clear rule for police to follow in that circumstance," Lubin said.
Rozynsky echoed these arguments even more forcefully.
"All of the police officers readily admit there was no life-altering situation, no life-ending situation... you can argue that any circumstance is an emergency exception, but the Department of Justice made it very clear it has to be life-ending or life-altering, otherwise you cannot [use children to interpret]," he said.
Carlson maintained that the Oconto and Oconto Falls police acted properly and within the scope of the ADA.
"We do not believe we have an affirmative obligation to prevent Ms. Lange from using her children," Carlson said. "Are the officers supposed to tell the kids to go to their room?
Sykes was joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judges Joel Flaum, a Gerald Ford appointee, and Thomas Kirsch II, a Donald Trump appointee. The judges took the case under advisement and did not say when they would issue a ruling.
Follow @djbyrnes1
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
