Phan can barely speak English and was interviewed by a police interpreter who, according to her defense attorney, may have misinterpreted Phan’s testimony, leading her to be wrongly accused.

Being a police officer can be hard work as it is. When you throw the need to operate in high-stress situations that might involve languages you don’t speak, things can get even hairier. The Seattle Police Department has informal policies to deal with such situations when they happen.

“If we need to take immediate action, we’re going to do that to protect the public,” says SPD spokesperson Sean Whitcomb. “Once we get to an environment that is safe for everyone, then we can worry about dealing with the proper translation.”

Whitcomb offers one scenario: Police are alerted to an assault-in-progress, which on arrival turns out to be a domestic violence situation between two Spanish-speaking people who don’t comprehend English. Police would separate the subjects and then call for a Spanish-speaking officer to interpret.

If none were available and the situation were hostile, officers would detain the subjects, even if they couldn’t properly tell them their Miranda rights.

“Our department policy states we will Mirandize on arrest,” Whitcomb says, but acknowledges that often this is not the case with non-English-speaking persons. Constitutionally, it’s only necessary prior to interrogation and imprisonment, so a subject can be detained and then read their rights at a later time, according to Whitcomb.

The Seattle police’s use of bilingual officers to translate may cause more problems than it solves. Legal experts instructing police departments on how to deal with non-English-speaking people warn that the use of bilingual officers in any situation, even potentially violent ones, may be a death sentence for the court case that follows.

The National Association of Judicial Interpreters and Translators published a position paper recently which stated that, “Use of a bilingual officer [to interpret] may be regarded as a conflict of interest and may also be challenged in court.” The Summit/Lorain Project, a resource document for dealing with language barriers, concurs. “Ability to carry out basic conversation in a foreign language is not enough for situations where safety and life can be at stake,” it says. “Language proficiency must be reliably tested for police standards.”

According to Whitcomb, bilingual officers are used by the SPD to interpret, but specific data on how often they are used was not forthcoming. He did, however, confirm that bilingual officers used in such situations are not certified or trained for interpreting.

A survey conducted by the city and released in December found that immigrant communities in Seattle rated police, fire, parks, and other public services highly. Released by the mayor and City Council, the survey also suggested that government agencies hire more bilingual staff.

The defense that Phan’s attorney plans to mount has worked in the past — a notable example was in a 1999 murder trial in Ohio. Alejandro Ramirez was convicted of one count of murder, but because he could not read, speak, or understand English, and the interpreter used by police mangled the Miranda warning, his conviction was overturned and Ramirez set free.

Roberto Maestas, executive director of El Centro de la Raza in Seattle, hasn’t heard about any problems with the SPD’s handling of situations with non-English-speaking peoples lately, but does say there’s a history of impropriety.

“The cop culture is very corrupt, and even though there may not be grotesque manifestations of this at any given time, the daily dysfunction is a reality for people of color,” says Maestas. “It’s something that’s inevitable — at some point, something will come up.”