Texas Department of Public Safety v. Cody Littlepage, 03-14-00194-CV

Littlepage, who is deaf and communicates via ASL, was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Williamson County, Texas.
Deputy Ramirez did not arrange an ASL interpreter and relied on written communication to explain the DIC-24 warnings and request a breath/blood sample.
After arrest, communication ceased as Littlepage was handcuffed, leaving him unable to respond or understand the warnings written or orally conveyed.
The Administrative Law Judge found Littlepage was properly asked to submit a specimen and refused; the county court reversed, suggesting lack of proper proof of refusal.
Appellee argued that warnings were not provided in a manner understandable to a deaf person, violating due process and ADA obligations; he sought no license suspension.
The brief analyzes whether warnings complied with Transportation Code § 724.015 and whether due process and ADA requirements require language accommodations for a deaf arrestee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the warning provided in a manner understandable to a deaf person?	Littlepage did not understand warnings due to deafness.	Littlepage understood English sufficiently to read the warnings and refused.	No; warnings were not understood by Littlepage.
Did Littlepage expressly refuse to provide a breath sample?	Littlepage did not understand the request and never knowingly refused.	Littlepage read or heard warnings and chose to refuse by silence or nonresponse.	No; there was no intelligent or informed refusal.
Did the officer's failure to provide warnings in ASL violate due process/ADA protections?	Due process and ADA require language-access accommodations; absence of accommodations violated rights.	Warnings provided in written/oral form, with some evidence of comprehension; no automatic violation shown.	No explicit reading of full compliance; due process considerations favor accommodation and caution against a quick inference of refusal.
Should the administrative decision imposing a license suspension be affirmed given the communication barriers?	Because warnings were not effectively provided, no informed waiver/refusal occurred and suspension is unwarranted.	If any warnings were provided and there was any nonresponse, suspension could be justified.	The record supports no license suspension due to ineffective warnings and nonresponsive refusal.

Erdman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (warnings must be understood for informed waiver)
Ex parte Ard, No. AP-75,704, slip op. at 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (issues framed around necessity of informed decisions at hearings)
Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (record review of admissibility and process)
Landin v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 475 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1971) (context for DPS warnings and refusals)
Lane v. State, 951 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997) (importance of understanding warnings in refusals)
Nebes v. State, 743 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (informed decision doctrine in refusals)
Raesner v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 982 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (refusal standards in DPS context)
TX DPS v. Jauregui, 176 S.W.3d 846 (Tex.App. 2005) (distinguishes written warning adequacy when warnings understood)
State v. Amaya, 221 S.W.3d 797 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007) (warnings given in multiple languages; relevance to language access)