230 A.3d 121
Md.2020Background
- Early morning stop: Montgomery County officers found Walter Portillo asleep at the wheel with open beer cans; they conducted standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) roadside and arrested him for suspected DUI.
- Language issues at scene: Portillo, a native Spanish speaker, showed limited English proficiency; officers noticed confusion, and dispatch indicated a Spanish translator was available but distant; officers did not use Language Line and proceeded in English.
- At the station: Officer Sharkey read the MVA DR-15 Advice of Rights form aloud in English (the form has a Spanish translation printed on the back). Portillo signed the form and submitted to a breath test that read 0.15.
- Pretrial practice: Portillo moved to suppress the breath-test result and SFST evidence on grounds he did not understand English; the trial court denied suppression, treating comprehension as a matter of weight not admissibility.
- Trial and disposition: Jury convicted Portillo of DUI-related offenses; Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide (1) whether DR-15 read in English to a limited-English driver satisfied TR §16-205.1 and (2) admissibility of SFSTs given language barrier.
Issues
| Issue | Portillo's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether reading DR-15 in English to a limited-English proficient driver satisfies the implied-consent "advice of rights" requirement | Portillo: officers must give advisements in a language the driver understands; reading in English to a non‑English speaker vitiates voluntary consent | State: providing the bilingual DR-15 form and reading it in English is sufficient; alternatively, officers must only take reasonable steps to convey advisements | Held: Adopted an objective "reasonableness" standard—officers must use methods that reasonably convey the statutory warnings; here officer’s conduct was not reasonable and breath-test evidence must be suppressed. |
| 2) Standard to apply when a detained driver has limited English proficiency | Portillo: adopt strict rule requiring advisements in a language the driver speaks | State: prefer flexible approach or only reasonable-effort standard | Held: Court rejects strict rule (Marquez) and adopts reasonableness test (as in Piddington/Mfataneza): English warnings are presumptively sufficient but officers must take reasonable accommodations when language barriers are manifest. |
| 3) Admissibility of SFSTs administered in English to a limited-English driver (Md. Rules 5-701 and 5-403) | Portillo: SFSTs were unreliable and unduly prejudicial because instructions were in English | State: SFSTs and officer testimony were relevant and weight issues for the jury; defense could cross-examine | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion—SFST testimony and body-cam video were admissible; comprehension goes to weight, not per se admissibility. |
| 4) Whether Equal Protection violation (language discrimination) requires exclusion of evidence | Portillo: administering tests in English discriminated and warrants suppression | State: no established precedent for exclusionary remedy for equal protection violations in this context | Held: Court declines to create an exclusionary remedy for Equal Protection claims; evidence suppression is not the proper remedy here. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marquez, 998 A.2d 421 (N.J. 2010) (strict rule: advisements must be given in a language the person understands)
- State v. Piddington, 623 N.W.2d 528 (Wis. 2001) (adopted reasonableness standard: officers must use methods that reasonably convey implied‑consent warnings)
- State v. Mfataneza, 210 A.3d 874 (N.H. 2019) (applied reasonableness test; officer’s efforts were adequate)
- Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Barrett, 467 Md. 61 (Md. 2020) (DR-15 generally satisfies due process when read or provided)
- Loscomb v. State, 291 Md. 424 (Md. 1981) (failure to comply with procedural requirements of implied-consent statute renders chemical-test results inadmissible)
- Gonzalez v. State, 429 Md. 632 (Md. 2012) (Miranda warnings in English insufficient for non‑English speaker absent exhaustive efforts to convey warnings in defendant’s language)