[¶ 1] Miguel Ayala appeals a criminal judgment entered on his conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence. He reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his blood test result, arguing that law enforcement failed to “inform” him as inquired under the implied-consent law. We affirm the judgment, concluding the district court did not err in finding the deputy properly informed Ayala.
I
[¶ 2] The facts relied upon by the district court were not disputed. A deputy sheriff stopped Ayala when he failed to dim his bright lights for oncoming traffic. The deputy testified that he questioned Ayala and detected the odor of alcohol emitting from the car. It became apparent to the deputy that Ayala struggled with English. A video recording of the stop showed the deputy attempting to communicate with Ayala and allowing him to ask questions.
[¶ 3] The deputy conducted the horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety test and observed six out of six clues that Ayala was intoxicated. He then read Ayala the implied-consent advisory in English, requesting that Ayala submit to a preliminary screening breath test. The deputy repeated and rephrased portions of the advisory in an attempt to ensure Ayala’s understanding, but did not read the advisory in Spanish, Ayala’s primary language.
[¶ 4] The State charged Ayala with driving under the influence. Ayala moved the district court to suppress evidence of his breath test, arguing the deputy failed to “inform” him of North Dakota’s implied-consent laws as required. He argued an “officer fails to inform the individual charged” under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) unless the implied-consent advisory is conveyed to the driver and the driver is “actually informed.” The district court denied Ayala’s motion, concluding that despite the language difficulties between them, the deputy properly informed Ayala under the implied-consent law. Ayala pled guilty, reserving this issue, and now appeals.
II
[¶ 5] The issue on appeal is the meaning of “inform” as used in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01. This is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.
State v. Kuruc,
[¶ 6] When a law enforcement officer requests a chemical test to determine if a driver has alcohol in his system, the test results are not admissible “if the law enforcement officer fails to inform the individual” of the implied-consent law. N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b). To satisfy this requirement, a complete implied-consent advisory must be provided to the driver.
State v. O’Connor,
[¶ 7] On appeal, the State argues that the requirement to “inform” a driver is equivalent to giving the advisory or notifying the driver. The State concedes that reading at an inaudible volume or at the speed of an auctioneer would create an unjust result, which we presume is not intended. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-38(3). Ayala argues in his brief that the legislature intended to create an objective test in which the officer is expected to act in an objectively reasonable manner to convey the advisory to drivers. During oral argument, however, he asked us to create a bright-line rule by which officers must convey the advisory in the primary language of the driver. After finding that the video showed Ayala was “properly informed,” the district court concluded that the statutory requirement to “inform” did not necessarily include reading or otherwise conveying the implied-consent advisory in the driver’s primary or preferred language.
[¶ 8] To the extent that “inform,” in this statutory context, means something more than the officer simply reading the advisory, we hold that it must be conveyed in an objectively reasonable way calculated to be comprehensible to the driver. Ordinarily,
[¶ 9] We decline Ayala’s invitation to interpret § 39-20-01 as requiring an officer in every case to convey the advisory in the primary or preferred language of the driver. Nothing in the statute suggests the legislature intended this meaning. Moreover, implied consent has already been given by the driver through the act of driving—the advisory is given to allow an opportunity to ratify or withdraw consent.
McCoy,
[¶ 10] Having determined the meaning of “inform” in § 39—20—01(3)(b), we now look to. whether the officer here conveyed the advisory in a manner sufficient to satisfy this requirement. When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we defer to its findings of fact, affirming “if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the court’s findings and if its decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”
State v. Canfield,
Ill
[¶ 11] We affirm the judgment, concluding the district court did not err in finding law enforcement had “informed” Ayala of the required implied-consent advisory.