The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a sexual assault conviction against Ajay Ajay, ruling that police violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide adequate language assistance during Miranda warnings. The court held that Ajay, a recent immigrant from India with limited English proficiency, could not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogation.
Ajay was convicted by a jury in Washoe County of sexual assault against a child under 14 years and attempted sexual assault against a child under 14 years. The conviction stemmed from statements he made during police questioning at the Reno police station while under investigation.
During the interrogation, Detective Carl DeSantis attempted to explain Ajay's Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. According to the Nevada Supreme Court opinion, Ajay repeatedly expressed confusion during the detective's explanation and specifically requested to converse in Hindi, his native language.
Despite Ajay's clear expressions of confusion and language difficulties, Detective DeSantis continued with the Miranda warning process. The detective explained each component of the warning until Ajay indicated he understood, after which DeSantis proceeded with the questioning. Following the interview, Ajay was arrested.
Before trial in the Second Judicial District Court, Ajay's defense attorney moved to suppress his statements to law enforcement. The defense argued that Ajay had not knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights due to his limited English proficiency. However, District Judge Kathleen A. Sigurdson denied the suppression motion, allowing the statements to be admitted as evidence at trial.
On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court focused specifically on whether Ajay's Miranda waiver was valid given the language barrier. The court conducted a thorough review of the record, examining the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and Ajay's ability to comprehend his constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court concluded that Ajay lacked sufficient English proficiency to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. The court held that law enforcement had an obligation to provide Ajay with an interpreter before conducting the custodial interrogation, given his obvious language difficulties and repeated requests to communicate in Hindi.
The court further determined that the district court erred when it denied Ajay's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the interrogation. This error, the Supreme Court found, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning it likely affected the outcome of the trial.
The Miranda warning, established by the Supreme Court in *Miranda v. Arizona* (1966), requires police to inform suspects in custody of their constitutional rights before interrogation. For a waiver of these rights to be valid, it must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Courts have consistently held that language barriers can prevent a suspect from making a valid waiver.
This case highlights the critical importance of ensuring that non-English speaking suspects fully understand their constitutional rights before police questioning. When language barriers exist, law enforcement agencies are generally required to provide qualified interpreters to ensure that suspects can make informed decisions about whether to speak with police.
The decision also underscores the courts' responsibility to carefully scrutinize Miranda waivers, particularly when defendants have limited English proficiency. The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling reinforces that constitutional protections must be meaningfully communicated, not merely recited, regardless of a suspect's native language.
The conviction reversal means that Ajay's case will return to the district court for new proceedings. The prosecution may choose to retry the case, but they will not be able to use the statements Ajay made during the improperly conducted interrogation.
Ajay was represented by attorney Karla K. Butko of Karla K. Butko, Ltd. The state was represented by Attorney General Aaron D. Ford, Washoe County District Attorney Christopher J. Hicks, and Appellate Deputy District Attorney Amanda Sage.
The opinion was issued by Chief Justice Herndon on behalf of the Nevada Supreme Court sitting en banc, meaning all justices participated in the decision. The case number is 88998, and the opinion was filed on Jan. 15, 2025.
This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies across Nevada about the importance of providing language assistance when questioning suspects who may not be proficient in English. The decision also reinforces that procedural safeguards must be substantively, not just technically, satisfied to protect defendants' constitutional rights.