State v. Ayala
2017 ND 116
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Deputy stopped Miguel Ayala for failing to dim bright headlights and detected alcohol odor; Ayala showed signs of intoxication and limited English proficiency.
- Officer performed HGN and observed 6/6 clues of intoxication, read the implied-consent advisory in English, and attempted to rephrase portions to aid understanding.
- Ayala submitted to a preliminary breath test (0.18) and, after arrest, an Intoxilyzer breath test at the jail (0.212).
- Ayala moved to suppress the breath-test results under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b), arguing the officer failed to “inform” him as required because the advisory was not conveyed in his primary language or otherwise actually understood.
- The district court denied suppression, finding the officer properly informed Ayala based on the video and the officer’s efforts to repeat/rephrase the advisory.
- Ayala pled guilty conditionally and appealed only the suppression ruling; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “inform” in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) | "Inform" equals giving/reading the advisory; objective standard suffices | Requires officer to ensure driver is actually informed; at oral argument sought bright-line rule requiring advisory in driver’s primary language | "Inform" means convey the advisory in an objectively reasonable way calculated to be comprehensible; ordinarily reading suffices; no per se requirement to use driver’s primary language |
| Application to this stop (sufficiency of officer’s steps) | Officer properly gave advisory, repeated/rephrased to aid comprehension | Officer should have conveyed advisory in Spanish or ensured actual understanding | Officer’s efforts and video evidence showed advisory was reasonably conveyed; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kuruc, 846 N.W.2d 314 (N.D. 2014) (standards for de novo statutory interpretation)
- State v. Davis, 882 N.W.2d 281 (N.D. 2016) (interpretation rules and use of legislative aids)
- McCoy v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 848 N.W.2d 659 (N.D. 2014) (implied consent occurs when operating a vehicle)
- State v. O’Connor, 877 N.W.2d 312 (N.D. 2016) (complete implied-consent advisory required for admissibility)
- State v. Canfield, 840 N.W.2d 620 (N.D. 2013) (standard of review for suppression factual findings)