Title: Funes v. State

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Walter Elenils Portillo Funes v. State of Maryland, No. 65, September Term, 2019.  
Opinion by Getty, J. 
 
CRIMINAL LAW—DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED—DRIVING UNDER THE 
INFLUENCE—IMPLIED CONSENT—ADVICE OF RIGHTS—DR-15 FORM—
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ADVISEMENT 
The Court of Appeals held that, when providing advice of rights prior to administering a 
chemical breath test, police officers must use methods that reasonably convey the warnings 
and rights in the implied consent statute, § 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article of the 
Maryland Code.  A police officer read in English a DR-15 Advice of Rights form to 
Petitioner, a native Spanish speaker.  The officer failed to read the DR-15 form in Spanish 
and/or utilize several Spanish language translation resources available to him, even after it 
became abundantly clear that Petitioner had limited English proficiency.  A driver’s 
inability to understand English and consequent inability to comprehend the advice of rights 
is a factual issue when presented in a motion to suppress.  Whether the actions of the officer 
reasonably conveyed the warnings and rights in the implied consent statute is an issue of 
fact to be determined by the suppression court. 
CRIMINAL LAW—DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED—DRIVING UNDER THE 
INFLUENCE—STANDARDIZED 
FIELD 
SOBRIETY 
TESTS—
ADMISSIBILITY—MARYLAND RULE 5-701—LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY 
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted 
the lay testimony of a police officer that administered in English standardized field sobriety 
tests to a driver with limited English proficiency.  The jury was entitled to consider the 
weight of that evidence. 
CRIMINAL LAW—DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED—DRIVING UNDER THE 
INFLUENCE—STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS—MARYLAND 
RULE 5-403—UNFAIR PREJUDICE 
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted 
body camera footage and the testimony of a police officer over the driver’s objection that 
the evidence was unduly prejudicial under Maryland Rule 5-403.  Where the testimony and 
video footage are relevant evidence, it is not unduly prejudicial merely because there is an 
innocent explanation for the actions of the driver.  The driver was able to address the 
innocent explanation on cross-examination and the jury was entitled to consider the weight 
of the evidence. 
CRIMINAL LAW—DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED—DRIVING UNDER THE 
INFLUENCE—STANDARDIZED 
FIELD 
SOBRIETY 
TESTS—EQUAL 
PROTECTION—EXCLUSIONARY RULE 
The Court of Appeals refused to apply the Exclusionary Rule to Equal Protection 
challenges to the admission of evidence in this case.  
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No. 135651C 
Argued: May 11, 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
No. 65 
 
September Term, 2019 
 
 
  
WALTER ELENILS PORTILLO FUNES 
 
 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF MARYLAND 
 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Getty, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
 
JJ. 
 
 
Opinion by Getty, J. 
 
 
Filed: June 30, 2020 
 
 
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act  
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document 
is authentic.
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk  
Suzanne Johnson
2020-06-30 10:36-04:00
In the 1950s and 1960s, many states, including Maryland,1 passed “implied consent” 
laws to encourage suspected drunk drivers to submit to chemical testing.  These statutes 
are based on the rationale that a condition precedent for the privilege of driving on a state 
road is a driver’s consent to permit chemical testing whenever properly requested.  If the 
driver refuses the test, the driver is deemed to have withdrawn his or her consent, which 
results in a violation of the condition precedent to a license.  Thus, the state revokes the 
conditional privilege of driving.  Maryland’s current implied consent statute says that, by 
driving on Maryland’s roads, a driver has consented to taking a chemical test when properly 
requested.  After a police officer gives sufficient “Advice of Rights,” a driver must choose 
between submitting to chemical testing or refusing and incurring administrative penalties.  
In most cases, an officer must merely read in English an “Advice of Rights” form, 
identified and commonly referred to as a DR-15 form, to provide sufficient advice of 
rights.  Certain circumstances, however, can render advice of rights insufficient, even when 
the officer reads a DR-15 form.  Today, we must decide if reading that form in English to 
a driver with limited English proficiency is such a circumstance. 
In the early morning hours of October 14, 2018, police officers found Petitioner 
Walter Elenils Portillo Funes asleep at the wheel of his truck.  The officers brought Mr. 
Portillo2 to the station after he failed several field sobriety tests.  An officer read in English 
                                                 
1 1969 Md. Laws, ch. 158. 
2 The record does not specify Petitioner’s preferred surname.  Because his counsel refers 
to Petitioner as “Mr. Portillo,” we will do the same. 
 
2 
 
the DR-15 form to Mr. Portillo, who speaks Spanish.  Mr. Portillo, by signing the DR-15 
form, agreed to take a breath test, which he failed.  The State charged Mr. Portillo by 
citation with various drunk driving offenses. 
Before trial, Mr. Portillo moved in limine to exclude the field sobriety tests and the 
breath test.  According to Mr. Portillo, he did not understand the field sobriety test 
instructions or the advice of rights because he has limited English proficiency.  Without 
hearing any evidence, the trial court denied the motions, stating that the English 
comprehension issue was a matter of weight, not admissibility.  At trial, the State presented 
as evidence the field sobriety tests and breath test.  Mr. Portillo, on cross-examination, 
challenged the weight of that evidence on grounds that he does not understand English.  
Unconvinced, the jury convicted Mr. Portillo of several drunk driving crimes. 
Because the trial court never ruled on the sufficiency of the advice of rights, Mr. 
Portillo brings that question before us in the context of the implied consent statute.  We 
hold that, in giving advice of rights, officers must use methods that reasonably convey the 
warnings and rights in the implied consent statute.  The officer in this case did not use 
reasonable methods.  We will reverse and remand for a new trial at which the breath test 
evidence must be suppressed.   
BACKGROUND 
A. 
Roadside Stop & Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. 
On the morning of October 14, 2018, shortly before 6:00 a.m., Montgomery County 
Police Officer Devon Sharkey was driving southbound on New Hampshire Avenue on his 
way to work when he observed a red pickup truck stopped in the right-most northbound 
 
3 
 
lane.  Officer Sharkey made a U-turn and pulled behind the truck.  What happened next 
was captured by Officer Sharkey’s body camera. 
The truck’s brake lights were on, and when he approached the passenger side on 
foot, Officer Sharkey noticed that the keys were in the ignition, the engine was running, 
and the gearshift was in drive.  The driver, later identified as Mr. Portillo, had his foot on 
the brake pedal and was “slumped over the wheel, apparently not awake.”  An open can of 
Corona beer sat in the cup holder in the center console.  
After backup arrived, the police woke Mr. Portillo, removed him from his vehicle, 
and escorted him to the sidewalk where he was able to stand without assistance.  According 
to Officer Sharkey, Mr. Portillo gave off “a consistent strong odor of alcoholic beverage” 
and had “bloodshot watery eyes.”  Returning to the truck, officers found two additional 
cans of beer, one empty in the compartment along the driver’s door and one unopened on 
the front passenger floorboard.  Illuminated by streetlight, Officer Sharkey conducted 
standardized field sobriety tests at Mr. Portillo’s location on the sidewalk.  Officer Sharkey, 
a five-year veteran of the Montgomery County Police Department, began by asking 
background questions to Mr. Portillo.  It quickly became apparent that English was not the 
primary language of Mr. Portillo.  Asked where he was coming from, Mr. Portillo, who 
spoke with a heavy accent, responded, “El Salvador.”  When Officer Sharkey clarified that 
he meant “this particular evening or morning,” Mr. Portillo again said “El Salvador.”  
Concerned that “there may be a language barrier” and that Mr. Portillo did not speak 
English, Officer Sharkey contacted dispatch to make arrangements for someone to speak 
to Mr. Portillo in Spanish.  He learned from dispatch that there was a translator available 
 
4 
 
in the county who was “a distance away.”  Officer Sharkey later admitted at trial that he 
could have utilized Language Line, a telephonic translation service available to the police 
department.  He opted not to call Language Line or wait for a translator to arrive and “went 
ahead.”  According to Officer Sharkey, he decided not to use a translator because Mr. 
Portillo “insist[ed] that he understood English.” 
Footage from the officer-worn body cameras showed that Mr. Portillo was confused.  
During questioning, Mr. Portillo struggled to answer basic questions posed in English, 
including where he was located and where he was coming from.  He was only able to 
respond to inquiries into how much he had to drink, where he lived, and whether he had a 
driver’s license when an officer translated those questions into Spanish.  Even then, he 
spoke in a mixture of broken English and Spanish. 
When the police asked Mr. Portillo, in English, when he last drank alcohol, he 
responded “I don’t speak English” and asked the police to “speak in Spanish.”  An officer 
replied, “Let me explain something to you.  If you don’t cooperate and answer our 
questions, you’re just going to go in handcuffs and be arrested right now.”  Mr. Portillo 
replied, “Oh, my God.”  The officer then turned away and asked another officer which of 
them was going to administer the field sobriety tests.  The officer to whom he was speaking 
responded, “It don’t matter to me.  Let’s get this ball rolling.”  When the first officer 
explained that “we’re waiting for a translator,” the other officer stated, “Well, there isn’t 
one.”  
Mr. Portillo protested repeatedly that “[m]y language is Spanish.”  At one point, he 
told an officer, “I don’t like anybody, okay.”  When the officer asked him whether that was 
 
5 
 
true, Mr. Portillo responded, “No, because my language is Spanish.”  Asked whether he 
spoke English, Mr. Portillo then gave a qualified and confusing response: “I speak English 
and I speak Spanish.  I don’t like anybody.”  
Proceeding in English notwithstanding his initial concerns, Officer Sharkey asked 
Mr. Portillo whether he had any medical conditions that could affect his balance, 
movement, or eyesight; whether he was diabetic, epileptic, or had seizure conditions; 
whether he was on any medications; and whether he wore contact lenses or eyeglasses.  
During this time, Officer Sharkey also asked Mr. Portillo multiple times to take his hands 
from his pockets but was met with blank stares and nonresponsive answers (e.g., “Let me 
know”).   
For the field sobriety tests, Officer Sharkey began with the horizontal gaze 
nystagmus (“HGN”) test, which tracks involuntary movement of the pupils.  At trial, 
Officer Sharkey explained the instructions he provides to individuals undergoing the HGN 
test:  
So, first, we will instruct the participant to stand straight and tall, feet 
together.  Hands straight down at the sides, instruct the individual to follow 
the movement.  I would hold a pen with my finger towards the top of it.  I 
ask them to follow the tip of that pen and move their eyes only, do not move 
their head while they’re following it and, just go through a series of tracking 
the pupils normally to see if they’re moving together and then check different 
ranges of motion from the center to the sides. 
 
Because Mr. Portillo did not object or ask questions in response to the instructions, 
Officer Sharkey proceeded with the HGN test, observing six of six possible “clues,” or 
signs Mr. Portillo may have consumed alcohol.  The video footage of the HGN test shows 
that Officer Sharkey had to remind Mr. Portillo of the instructions multiple times, at one 
 
6 
 
point saying, “I keep repeating because you’re not doing it.  You understand that?  You 
said you understood but you’re not doing it.”  
Officer Sharkey next administered the “walk-and-turn” test.  As with the HGN test, 
the walk-and-turn test begins with a series of verbal instructions.  At trial, Officer Sharkey 
described the instructions:  
The instructions are to stand straight and tall, facing the front, hands down at 
the sides, to place the right foot in front of the left, heel to toe, and to stay in 
that position, listening to the instructions and watching a demonstration.  
Furthermore, from that stance, the individual is to look down at their 
feet, maintaining heel to toe positioning, taking a series of nine steps in one 
direction, looking down, counting out loud each step while they’re looking 
down at the foot, maintaining the heel to toe contact, walking on an 
imaginary straight line.  
After those first nine steps, they plant the lead foot, take a series of 
small steps to turn around and then come back along that same imaginary 
line to finish up with the second set of nine steps in the same way.  Once they 
start, they do not stop until they are finished with the test.  
After giving those instructions, I demonstrate with a series of three 
steps, turned around, three more steps and explained that I only did the three 
but they are to do the nine steps each way.  
 
Officer Sharkey had to ask Mr. Portillo multiple times if he understood the 
instructions.  At times, Mr. Portillo responded affirmatively (“Yes, sir”).  Other times, he 
gave nonresponsive answers (e.g., Q: “Do you understand, yes or no?” A: “One.”). 
Mr. Portillo performed poorly on the walk-and-turn test, starting too early, putting 
his arms up, failing to maintain contact between his heels and toes, failing to walk in a 
straight line, and making an improper turn.  Mr. Portillo took twelve steps, rather than nine, 
counting to thirteen in English as he did so.  Officer Sharkey testified that he observed 
seven of eight clues during the test. 
 
7 
 
The final test was the “one-leg stand” test.  Mr. Portillo appeared not to understand 
Officer Sharkey’s request that he return to the illuminated area to take the test, so another 
officer had to take him by the arm and point to where he needed to go.  Officer Sharkey 
then gave Mr. Portillo the following instructions, as described at trial:  
The instructions are to stand straight; feet together, arms down at the sides, 
to choose one leg, whichever one he wants, to lift one foot approximately six 
inches off the ground, [] say about the length of [a] dollar bill just for visual, 
to hold the leg straight, keep the foot parallel to the ground, looking down at 
the foot, count out loud, one thousand one, one thousand two and so on until 
I tell him to stop. 
 
Not asking any questions, or even waiting for Officer Sharkey to finish the 
instructions, Mr. Portillo took steps backwards as if he thought he needed to do a reverse 
walk-and-turn test.  He then continued to display confusion, putting his arms up with palms 
out, shrugging his shoulders, and looking to the other officers.  In response, Officer 
Sharkey inquired of Mr. Portillo, “Did you understand what I said because you did 
something way different?”  After Officer Sharkey demonstrated how to do the test, Mr. 
Portillo made an attempt to comply, but expressed confusion over which foot to raise, put 
his foot down too early, used his arms to maintain balance, and swayed.  Officer Sharkey 
testified that he observed three of four clues during the test.  Based on Mr. Portillo’s 
performance during the field sobriety tests, Officer Sharkey believed him to be impaired, 
placed him under arrest, and transported him to the police station. 
B. 
Chemical Breath Test. 
At the police station, Officer Sharkey read to Mr. Portillo in English from the DR-
15 “Advice of Rights” form that had a Spanish translation printed on the back.  Officer 
 
8 
 
Sharkey gave Mr. Portillo an “identical” version of the form to follow along, although he 
admitted that he did not pay attention to whether Mr. Portillo was able to do so.  While he 
read the form, Officer Sharkey’s body cam mostly showed the form blocking Mr. Portillo’s 
face.  At times, Mr. Portillo’s face is visible and he is looking down or at the wall.  It is 
unclear whether Mr. Portillo was reading the form on the table in front of him.   
Officer Sharkey described the DR-15 as containing “a lot to read” and “very long, 
tedious information.”  Indeed, the DR-15 is a lengthy, single-spaced form that explains, in 
great detail, an individual’s right to withdraw consent to a breath test, as well as the 
penalties associated with certain test results, the criminal and administrative consequences 
of declining the test, the individual’s administrative rights to challenge those consequences, 
and other matters.3  All of these advisements are translated into Spanish on the back of the 
form.  The English side of the form includes at the bottom several important sentences 
translated into Spanish.  Those sentences certify that the officer “advised the driver of the 
above stated rights and sanctions” in “English and Spanish”: 
Certification: I, the Undersigned Police Officer, certify under the penalties 
of perjury, that I have advised the driver of the above stated rights and 
sanctions and have provided the driver with the aforementioned advice in: 
English and Spanish.  
 
Certificación: Yo, el oficial de policía abajo firmante, certifico bajo pena de 
perjurio que he aconsejado al conductor acerca de sus derechos y sanciones 
arriba mencionados, y que le he proporcionado la notificación arriba 
mencionada al conductor en: inglés y español.  
 
                                                 
3 The DR-15 form as it currently exists is attached as an appendix to this opinion. 
 
9 
 
After a line for the officer’s signature, the document provides, in English and 
Spanish, a driver acknowledgment statement and agreement selections: 
Read before Signing: I, the undersigned driver, acknowledge that I have 
been read or I have read the above stated Advice of Rights as certified by the 
police officer. I understand that this requested test is in addition to any 
preliminary tests that were taken.  
 
Leer Antes de Firmar: Yo, el conductor abajo firmante, reconozco que 
me han leído o he leído la Notificación de Derechos arriba mencionada según 
lo certifica el oficial de policía. Comprendo que esta prueba solicitada es 
adicional a cualquier prueba preliminar que se haya realizado.  
 
Having been so advised, do you now agree to submit to a test? (Officer check 
driver’s reply)  
 
Habiendo sido de este modo notificado, está Usted de acuerdo ahora en 
someterse a la prueba? (Oficial, revise la respuesta del conductor) 
 
❑ Yes - Agree to submit to an alcohol concentration test  
Sí - Acepta someterse a una prueba de concentración de alcohol en la                
sangre 
 
❑ No - Alcohol concentration test, refused  
    No - La prueba de concentración de alcohol en la sangre ha sido rechazada 
 
At the very bottom of the page is a line for the driver to sign and date. 
According to Officer Sharkey, it took Mr. Portillo “several minutes” to decide 
whether to take the breath test.  During that time, Mr. Portillo continued to exhibit 
confusion.  When Officer Sharkey asked him whether he would submit to the breath test, 
Mr. Portillo responded in broken English, “This one.  We not bother you guys tell me.  We 
do.”  Likewise, when asked to confirm whether he wanted to take the test, Mr. Portillo said, 
“I don’t know what it is, you know.”  Ultimately, Mr. Portillo signed the form, promising 
“to be good,” after Officer Sharkey urged him to decide “faster” and told him that he could 
 
10 
 
“go home” and not to jail if he took the test.  After Mr. Portillo signed the DR-15, Officer 
Sharkey brought in Sergeant Douglas Miller to administer the breath test, which he 
conducted with an Intoximeter.4  The machine registered an alcohol concentration of 0.15, 
nearly twice the legal limit of .08. 
The State charged Mr. Portillo with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving 
while impaired by alcohol, driving under the influence of alcohol per se, and negligent 
driving.  On April 16, 2019, Mr. Portillo was convicted in the District Court of Maryland 
sitting in Montgomery County.  Mr. Portillo noted an appeal to the Circuit Court for 
Montgomery County. 
C. 
Pretrial Motions to Exclude the Breath and Field Sobriety Tests. 
One day before the scheduled circuit court trial, Mr. Portillo filed two motions—
styled as “Motions in Limine”—the first to suppress the chemical breath test evidence and 
the second to suppress evidence of the field sobriety tests.  Mr. Portillo argued that 
exclusion of the breath test was required because he did not understand English and thus 
the advisement of his rights in English rendered his submission to the test involuntary and 
in violation of Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”) § 10-309 and Transportation 
                                                 
4 An Intoximeter is the instrument officers use to determine the alcohol concentration of 
suspected drunk drivers.  See Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Smith, 458 Md. 677, 683 n.5 (2018) 
(“An intoximeter is ‘[a] non-portable instrument for measuring the alcohol content of a 
person’s breath, especially in cases of suspected drunken driving, usually sited at a police 
station.’ 
 
Intoximeter 
definition, 
English 
Oxford 
Dictionary, 
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intoximeter, 
archived 
at 
https://perma.cc/WRN4-224Y”).  Only certain officers are certified to administer 
Intoximeter tests.  According to Sergeant Miller, certification requires a 40-hour class and 
yearly in-service training.  Mr. Portillo did not challenge Sergeant Miller’s certification. 
 
11 
 
Article (“TR”) § 16-205.1 of the Maryland Code.5  The motion to exclude evidence of the 
field sobriety tests was similarly grounded in Mr. Portillo’s inability to understand English, 
which, he argued, rendered the results of the tests unreliable.  He further argued that the 
administration of the field sobriety tests in English violated his constitutional right to equal 
protection. 
The parties gathered for a Maryland Rule 4-252 motions hearing and one-day trial 
on June 24, 2019.  At the hearing the State made, and the circuit court granted, a motion 
for postponement.  On the morning of the new trial date, July 22, 2019, the State filed an 
opposition to Mr. Portillo’s motions to suppress the field sobriety tests and chemical breath 
test.  In its opposition, the State mainly addressed a claim Mr. Portillo did not raise: whether 
the police had probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence.  The State also 
argued that whether Mr. Portillo understood English was “a factual issue to be determined 
by the factfinder, which in this case is the jury,” and that evidence of the breath test was 
admissible because the police advised Mr. Portillo of his rights using the appropriate DR-
15 form. 
Before the trial began, the circuit court first heard arguments on suppression of the 
field sobriety tests at which defense counsel offered to present evidence in support of his 
motions: 
                                                 
5 Mr. Portillo also argued in this motion and at trial that the breath test should be excluded 
because the officers failed to adhere to the required 20-minute observation period prior to 
administering the test.  See COMAR 10.35.02.08(G)(1)–(2).  That argument is not at issue 
in this appeal. 
 
12 
 
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: . . . And I just wanted to flag for Your Honor, if, 
after I give the argument, Your Honor is interested in hearing any testimony 
from the officers about this case or seeing any of the video that backs it up, 
I’m happy to provide that.  
 
THE COURT: I don’t know what you mean.  This is your motion in limine, 
and so if you want to make your arguments you do, it is not typically 
evidentiary in nature.  It’s not what the Court wants, it’s how you want to 
present—how you must present your case, so what is your argument for 
suppression of the field sobriety tests?  
 
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.  The field sobriety test, the 
fundamental problem with the field sobriety test is that they were provided 
—they were administered to Mr. Portillo in English although he speaks 
Spanish.  He objected several times when—  
 
THE COURT: And that goes to the weight.  That, you can argue at cross.  
What else is your reason for suppression of the field sobriety test?  
 
Defense counsel proceeded to argue the points from his written motion, which the court 
denied:   
THE COURT: Okay.  As I indicated earlier, any issues concerning the 
individual’s ability to understand are going to be issues for you to explore on 
cross-examination.  I do find that there is a rational basis to permit the 
officer[’s] testimony concerning his observations during the field sobriety 
tests are admissible.  You are always free to cross on his training and 
experience. Next? 
 
Defense counsel then argued for suppression of the breath test, again repeating the grounds 
argued in his written motion.  The court denied that motion as well: 
THE COURT: All of your arguments go to weight, and in terms of the 
admissibility, if he did not understand the DR-15 and you are able to establish 
that, certainly, at that point, you can move to suppress at that point, but, as a 
matter of ruling on this preliminarily, your objections are overruled. . . . 
 
The case immediately proceeded to trial. 
  
 
13 
 
D. 
Trial and Appeal. 
At trial, the State presented two witnesses, Officer Sharkey, who administered the 
field sobriety tests and read the DR-15 form, and Sergeant Miller, who administered the 
breath test.6  The State also played several clips from the officers’ body cameras.  When 
prompted by the court, defense counsel stated that he had “no objection” to the testimony 
of Officer Sharkey or the admission of the body camera footage.  On cross examination, 
defense counsel played several clips from the body camera footage. 
Mr. Portillo renewed his motions to suppress during Officer Sharkey’s testimony 
and again when the State offered the results of the breath test into evidence during Sergeant 
Miller’s testimony.  On the former occasion, the court restated its conclusion that “your 
particular arguments go[] to weight, not the admissibility of it.”  On the latter, the court 
declared that it did not “have any evidence that [Mr. Portillo] didn’t understand any 
language” and criticized defense counsel for not seeking a pretrial hearing on what the 
court characterized as “a motion to suppress” and not “a motion in limine.”  The court then 
denied the motion to suppress the breath test a final time, stating:  
[I]n terms of your motion to suppress at this juncture, your arguments are 
based upon his failure to understand. 
I have no evidence to that effect.  All I have is the State’s Attorney’s 
Office, their witnesses saying this is what they did, and I don’t have—that’s 
a question of whether or not you want to argue is different and before the 
jury that he didn’t understand the instructions, but, at this preliminary stage 
in the motion to suppress, I find that there is sufficient evidence to permit the 
State to use the evidence and then your arguments are really the subject of 
argument.  So I’m not suppressing the breath test. 
 
                                                 
6 A spoken language interpreter was present at trial. 
 
14 
 
At the conclusion of the State’s case, Mr. Portillo moved for, and the court granted, 
judgment of acquittal for the negligent driving charge, but denied the motion as to the other 
three charges.  At the close of all evidence, Mr. Portillo renewed his motion for judgment 
of acquittal as to the three remaining charges, and the court again denied that motion.  The 
jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three remaining charges: driving under the influence 
of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol, and driving under the influence of alcohol 
per se.  A month later, the court sentenced Mr. Portillo to one year with all but eight days 
suspended in favor of two years’ probation. 
We granted Mr. Portillo’s petition for writ of certiorari to consider two questions: 
1. Did the circuit court err in denying Mr. Portillo’s motion to exclude the 
chemical breath test, where Spanish-speaking Mr. Portillo was advised of 
his right to decline the test in English? 
 
2. Did the circuit court err in denying Mr. Portillo’s motion to exclude the 
standardized field sobriety tests, where Mr. Portillo was a Spanish 
speaker but the tests were performed in English? 
 
For the reasons below, we answer the first question in the affirmative and reverse.  
On the second question, we answer in the negative and affirm.  The case will be remanded 
to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a new trial where the breath test evidence, 
but not the field sobriety test evidence, must be suppressed. 
DISCUSSION 
A. 
Breath Tests. 
The circuit court denied Mr. Portillo’s motion to exclude the breath tests, concluding 
that any issues with his lack of understanding the advice of rights form goes to the weight 
 
15 
 
of the evidence and not to admissibility.  We disagree and will reverse and remand.  The 
court erred by failing to hear evidence on the sufficiency of the advice of rights.   
1. Parties’ Contentions. 
Mr. Portillo contends that the circuit court erred in admitting the chemical breath 
test into evidence because he was not fully advised of his rights as required under the 
implied consent statute.  Mr. Portillo advocates for this Court to adopt a standard requiring 
police officers to advise drivers of their rights in a language that the driver speaks and 
understands.  Because Officer Sharkey read aloud the DR-15 form in English, Mr. Portillo 
maintains that he was deprived of his right to knowingly and voluntarily consent to the 
chemical breath test.  According to Mr. Portillo, adopting a standard which requires officers 
to verbally communicate the advisements of the DR-15 form in a language the driver 
understands is the only standard which pays “the most respect to the dignity of the non-
English speaking individuals.” 
The State responds that because Officer Sharkey provided Mr. Portillo a copy of the 
DR-15 that contained the advisements in both English and Spanish to read to himself there 
is no factual basis for Mr. Portillo’s contention that he did not understand the DR-15 form 
advisements.  The State further contends that this Court does not need to address whether 
the implied consent statute requires police officers to advise drivers in a language they are 
able to speak and understand.  If this Court chooses to address this question, the State 
advocates for a standard that requires police officers to take steps necessary to reasonably 
convey to drivers the advisements contained in the DR-15, as this interpretation is 
consistent with the purpose of the implied consent statute. 
 
16 
 
2. Standard of Review. 
Typically, when reviewing a suppression ruling made during trial, the Court is 
limited to the evidence and arguments made at the hearing on the motion to suppress and 
not the trial record.  Lewis v. State, 398 Md. 349, 358 (2007).  The Court accepts the 
suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations, unless clearly 
erroneous, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party—here 
the State.  Bost v. State, 406 Md. 341, 349 (2008); State v. Tolbert, 381 Md. 539, 548 
(2004).  The Court, of course, cannot review the evidence made at the hearing on the 
motion to suppress if the suppression court neither holds a suppression hearing nor hears 
any evidence.  See Goodwin v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 199 Md. 121, 129–30 (1952) 
(“Obviously, then, if there is no factual statement or conclusion, there is no reason for the 
appellate court to examine the record with an evidentiary slant in favor of the appellee in 
order to sustain a non-existent presumption.”).  While we do not typically consider trial 
evidence when reviewing an appeal of the denial of a suppression motion, where (as here) 
there is no separate suppression hearing and the trial court holds a de facto suppression 
hearing during the trial, we can and should review the trial record to decide the suppression 
issue because the record is sufficiently developed.   
We review de novo any legal questions. Tolbert, 381 Md. at 548.  Here, the primary 
legal question is the proper standard by which advice of rights is reviewed.   
3. The Maryland Implied Consent and Advice of Rights Statute. 
Maryland, like all states, has adopted an implied consent statute: “[a]ny person who 
drives . . . a motor vehicle on a highway . . . is deemed to have consented . . . to take a test 
 
17 
 
if the person should be detained on suspicion of driving or attempting to drive while under 
the influence of alcohol.”7  TR § 16-205.1(a)(2).  The purpose of Maryland’s implied 
consent statute “is not to provide procedural protections to drivers who are suspected to be 
impaired by alcohol . . . instead, [its] purpose is to protect the public by deterring drunk 
and/or drugged driving.”  Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Barrett, 467 Md. 61, 70 (2020) (quoting 
Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Seenath, 448 Md. 145, 192 (2016)).  Still, for a breath test to be 
admissible, police officers must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of the 
implied consent and advice of rights statute.  See CJ § 10-309(a)(l)(ii) (“Evidence of a test 
or analysis provided for in this subtitle is not admissible in prosecution for violation of 
[TR] § 16-113 or § 21-902 . . . if obtained contrary to the provisions of this subtitle.”); State 
v. Loscomb, 291 Md. 424, 431, 437 (1981) (“[T]he results of the chemical test administered 
[are] inadmissible in prosecutions for violations of any law concerning a person accused 
of driving while intoxicated or impaired” when “there has been a failure to comply with 
the procedural requirements of  [TR] § 16-205.1”). 
Procedures include detaining the suspect, requesting that the suspect take a test, and, 
most importantly here, “advis[ing]” the suspect of the administrative sanctions and 
criminal penalties that accompany either refusing the test or a test reflecting a blood alcohol 
concentration above .08.  TR § 16-205.1(b)(2).  The advisements required of the implied 
consent statute are included in the Motor Vehicle Administration’s (“MVA”) DR-15 form.   
                                                 
7 The statute defines a “test” as either a breath test or blood test.  TR § 16-205.1(a)(1)(iii).   
 
18 
 
This Court recently reaffirmed “that due process is satisfied when the motorist reads 
or is read the DR-15 because the DR-15 ‘accurately and adequately conveys to the driver 
the rights granted by the statute’ and ‘the consequences of a test refusal.’” Barrett, 467 Md. 
at 70 (quoting Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Delawter, 403 Md. 243, 262 (2008)).  Indeed, the 
DR-15 form contains all the necessary advisements a driver needs to make an informed 
decision regarding the chemical breath test.  Id. at 70–71.   
The advisements are more than a formality, however.  Compliance with the advice 
of rights requirement of TR § 16-205.1 is necessary to ensure that the driver has “a choice 
between two different potential sanctions, each affecting vitally important interests,” Sites 
v. State, 300 Md. 702, 717 (1984), that is, automatic license suspension for refusal or 
potential criminal sanctions for submission.  
While reading the DR-15 aloud or giving a copy of it to the driver to read may fully 
advise the driver of the sanctions for a test refusal, a driver may not be fully advised if the 
police officer confuses the driver about the sanctions.  Barrett, 467 Md. at 71; Hare v. 
Motor Vehicle Admin., 326 Md. 296, 304 (1992) (“[T]he State [must] not mislead the 
defendant or construct road blocks, thus unduly burdening that decision-making.”).  “A 
detained motorist is deprived of the opportunity to make a knowing and voluntary decision 
regarding whether to take the test if the motorist is not fully advised of the sanctions for a 
refusal.”  Barrett, 467 Md. at 71–72 (citing Forman v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 332 Md. 201, 
216–17 (1993)).  We can think of few “road blocks” more detrimental to comprehension 
than a language barrier. 
 
19 
 
This is all to say that, although the primary purpose of the implied consent statute is 
to rid the State of the evils of drunk driving, there is a secondary purpose: to advise the 
driver of the potential sanctions for either submitting to or refusing a breath test.  Readily 
apparent in the case law is that sufficient advice of rights is not a high burden on police 
officers.  Indeed, simply reading the form is, in most cases, sufficient to avoid “road 
blocks.”  The case before us, however, is not “most cases.”  Reading the form in a language 
the driver does not understand is as good as not reading the form at all.   
Most state implied consent statutes, like TR § 16-205.1(b)(2), have “notice,” 
“inform,” or “advise” requirements.  See Flem K. Whited III, Drinking/Driving Litigation: 
Criminal & Civil § 11:15 (2d ed., West 2019).  While no Maryland court has addressed 
whether TR § 16-205.1 advisements must be given in a language the driver understands, 
other jurisdictions have addressed similar contexts within similar statutory schema.8  Like 
those courts, we analyze today the meaning of the word “advise” as it appears in the implied 
consent statute.  We proceed to analyze those cases through the lens of Maryland’s 
advisement requirement, that is, ensuring that the driver is fully advised and not 
impermissibly compelled to take a breath test.  Cf. Seenath, 448 Md. at 186–87 (“[W]e 
                                                 
8 We have addressed a similar question in the Miranda context.  In Gonzalez v. State, the 
Court held that Miranda warnings provided in English to the defendant, a Mexican 
immigrant who did not speak or comprehend English, were constitutionally sufficient only 
when the officer “painstakingly—and, ultimately, successfully—conveyed to Petitioner in 
Spanish the balance of the Miranda warnings.”  429 Md. 632, 653 (2012).  Unlike the 
officers in this case, the officers in Gonzalez worked exhaustively to make sure the 
defendant understood what the officers were saying by spending twenty-two minutes 
translating and providing Miranda warnings in Spanish.  Id. at 639–43. 
 
20 
 
must weigh the detained driver’s interests—which include making informed decisions 
about whether to consent to take alcohol concentration tests and being able to earn a living 
by driving—against the State’s interests, which include protecting the public, deterring 
drunk and/or drugged driving, and encouraging detained drivers to consent to take alcohol 
concentration tests.”).  We do so under the longstanding commitment of the General 
Assembly and Maryland judiciary to create a justice system accessible to all individuals 
regardless of their ability to understand English.9 
                                                 
9 Mr. Portillo’s brief provides several examples of the legislative and judicial commitment 
to an accessible justice system:  
Pursuant to §§ 1-202 and 3-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article [(“CP”)], 
a court “shall appoint a qualified interpreter to help a defendant . . . when the 
defendant . . . cannot readily understand or communicate the English 
language and cannot understand a charge made against the defendant or help 
present the defense.” [CP] §§ 1-202(a)(1)(ii), 3-103(a)(1)(ii).  Similarly, 9-
114 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article states that a court “shall 
appoint a qualified interpreter” to assist “a party, a witness, or a victim or 
victim’s representative” who is “deaf or cannot readily understand or 
communicate the spoken English 1anguage.”  [CJ] § 9-114(a)(1)–(2).  More 
generally speaking, Title 10, Subtitle 11 of the State Government Article 
contains provisions designed to implement “the policy of the State that State 
departments, agencies, and programs shall provide equal access to public 
services for individuals with limited English proficiency.”  Md. Code, State 
Gov’t Art. § 10-1101[; s]ee also Md. Rule 5- 133(b)(2) (providing that, upon 
application, a court “shall appoint an interpreter free of charge in court 
proceedings”); Biglari v. State, 156 Md. App. 657, 665, cert. denied, 382 
Md. 686 (2004) (explaining that “[t]he ability to understand the proceedings 
is essential to a defendant’s right to a fair trial” and that “[i]f a criminal 
defendant is unable to speak and understand English, an interpreter must be 
provided to the defendant because a defendant who cannot understand what 
is being said is not fairly present at trial”). 
 
21 
 
4. The Applicable Standard. 
Of the other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue in this case, three general 
lines of authority have emerged.  The first and most strict approach requires the police to 
accommodate non-English speakers by providing them with advisements of rights in 
languages they speak and understand.  Mr. Portillo understandably urges the Court to adopt 
a similar standard.  The second approach, a middle-of-the-road position, requires that 
police “reasonably convey” the advisements, which would entail giving them in a foreign 
language when practicable.  The third and most flexible approach allows the police to 
provide advisements in English even to drivers who do not understand them. 
The leading case on the strict approach is State v. Marquez, 998 A.2d 421 (N.J. 
2010).  The defendant in Marquez, who undisputedly did not understand English, 
challenged his conviction for refusing to take a breath test under New Jersey’s implied 
consent law.  Reversing, the New Jersey Supreme Court looked to the language of the 
statute, which, similar to TR § l6-205.l, required the police to “request” that drivers submit 
to a breath test and “inform” them of the consequences of refusal.  Id. at 434.  According 
to the court: 
the statute’s obligation to “inform” calls for more than a rote recitation of 
English words to a non-English speaker.  Knowledge cannot be imparted in 
that way.  Such a practice would permit Kafkaesque encounters in which 
police read aloud a blizzard of words that everyone realizes is incapable of 
being understood because of a language barrier.  That approach would also 
justify reading aloud the standard statement to a hearing-impaired driver who 
cannot read lips.  We do not believe that the Legislature intended those 
absurd results.  Rather, its directive that officers “inform,” in the context of 
the implied consent and refusal statutes, means that they must convey 
information in a language the person speaks or understands. 
 
 
22 
 
Id. (emphasis added).  The court highlighted that “reading the standard statement to 
motorists in a language they do not speak is akin to not reading the statement at all.”  Id. at 
435.  Thus, according to the court, “[t]he latter scenario renders a conviction defective.  It 
makes no sense that English speakers will be acquitted if incomplete warnings are read to 
them in English, yet foreign-language speakers can be punished on the basis of empty 
warnings that fail to inform them.”  Id. (citations omitted). 
 
The court was sure to caution that “it is not necessary for the State to prove that a 
driver actually understood the warnings on a subjective level.”  Id. at 438.  “If properly 
informed in a language they speak or understand while sober, drivers can be convicted 
under the implied consent and refusal statutes.  Voluntary, excessive drinking cannot and 
does not void the statutes.  Indeed, that type of voluntary behavior is fundamentally distinct 
from a person’s utter lack of ability to understand a foreign language.”  Id.  Even under 
that court’s new strict rule, therefore, “warnings given in English will presumably be 
competent.”  Id. 
While Marquez is well reasoned under the New Jersey implied consent and criminal 
refusal law,10 we think the better approach under the Maryland implied consent law is the 
                                                 
10 This is a fairly significant factual distinction.  In New Jersey, it is a criminal offense to 
refuse a blood alcohol content test, whereas in Maryland a refusal results in an 
administrative sanction.  While Marquez is a refusal case—and this is a submission-to-the-
test and admissibility case—both cases deal with the sufficiency of advisement.  We do not 
ultimately adopt the Marquez standard, but we find portions of the Marquez analysis 
persuasive. 
 
23 
 
one employed by Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, and most recently, New Hampshire.  
Like the Supreme Court of New Hampshire 
we agree with the New Jersey Supreme Court [in Marquez] that “inform” 
means “to communicate knowledge to” and “make acquainted,” [but] we do 
not agree that this definition creates an affirmative obligation on the officer 
to deeply probe into an arrested person’s preferred language in order to 
convey the warnings in the language of preference.  Such a requirement 
would shift the statutory focus from the “positive duty” imposed on the 
officer[] to the subjective understanding of the defendant.  This approach 
would turn the statutory scheme on its head. 
 
State v. Mfataneza, 210 A.3d 874, 878 (N.H. 2019) (internal citations and emphasis 
omitted) (quoting Marquez, 998 A.2d at 434).  Instead, we will adopt a reasonableness 
standard which “furthers the legislature’s intent and ensures that the goals of the statute 
will be realized.”  Id. at 879. 
The Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Piddington was the first supreme court to 
espouse a reasonableness standard, i.e., that officers must use methods that reasonably 
convey the warnings and rights in the implied consent statute.  623 N.W.2d 528, 540 (Wis. 
2001).  In Piddington, the defendant, a deaf individual, argued for suppression of his blood 
alcohol content test because the police did not provide an American Sign Language 
(“ASL”) interpreter.  The officer providing the advice of rights, who was not certified in 
ASL but knew some sign language, communicated orally and by sign, and gave Mr. 
Piddington a written advisement form.  Mr. Piddington read and initialed each paragraph 
on the form, indicating that he understood the advisements.  The breath test resulted in 
several charges under Wisconsin’s driving under the influence laws. 
 
24 
 
The trial court granted the motion to suppress the breath test, noting that “the 
attempts of law enforcement to communicate with the defendant were reasonable under all 
the circumstances, perhaps even exemplary” but that “those attempts were nonetheless 
insufficient to meet the State’s burden to show that Piddington had been informed 
regarding his right to an alternative test and other information contained in the [written 
advisements] form.”  Id. at 536–37. 
In reversing the suppression of the breath test, the Wisconsin Supreme Court looked 
to the intent of the Wisconsin implied consent law, which, like TR § 16-205.1, is twofold: 
“to combat drunk driving by facilitating the gathering of evidence against drunk drivers” 
and “to advise the accused about the nature of the driver’s implied consent.”  Id. at 538 
(cleaned up).  Through that lens, the court concluded 
that whether law enforcement officers have complied with [the implied 
consent statute] turns on whether they have used reasonable methods which 
would reasonably convey the warnings and rights in [the statute]. As 
in Miranda-type cases, the State has the burden of proof of showing, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the methods used would reasonably 
convey the implied consent warnings.  Also, in the implied consent setting, 
as well as in the Miranda setting, the onus is upon the law enforcement 
officer to reasonably convey the implied consent warnings.  
 
Id. at 540 (citations omitted).  Like the Marquez court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted 
both that the legal test was objective, “that is, whether the implied consent warnings were 
sufficiently administered must not depend upon the perception of the accused driver,” and 
that each case depends on the particular circumstances at the time of the arrest.  Id. at 539–
40.  
 
25 
 
 
“The approach we adopt,” the court explained, “only ensures that barriers which 
may affect the arresting officer’s ability to reasonably convey the implied consent warnings 
to an accused driver, such as one with impaired hearing, are taken into account and 
accommodated as much as is reasonable under the circumstances.”  Id. at 542.  The court 
therefore held that there was no error in the case before it as “the trooper performed a 
commendable job with his various attempts at accommodating and communicating with 
Piddington.”  Id. at 543. 
 
At least three other state supreme courts have adopted a reasonableness rule similar 
to Piddington.  See Mfataneza, 210 A.3d at 879 (adopting a reasonableness standard and 
finding that the officer did not “act[] unreasonably” where “there is evidence that the 
defendant: (1) knew the officer from prior encounters; (2) had spoken with the officer in 
English during these encounters; (3) told the officer twice at the police station that he spoke 
English; and (4) affirmatively indicated to the officer that he understood the statements on 
the form”); State v. Ayala, 894 N.W.2d 865, 868 (N.D. 2017) (adopting a reasonableness 
standard and holding that trial court had sufficient evidence to conclude the officer properly 
advised driver whose “English proficiency was limited but not so limited that he could not 
converse to some degree;” “the deputy repeated and rephrased portions of the advisory;” 
and the driver “responded to the officer’s questioning and communicated with the officer”); 
State v. Garcia, 756 N.W.2d 216, 223 (Iowa 2008) (adopting “a reasonableness standard” 
and holding that the officer “used those methods which would reasonably convey the 
implied consent warnings” where there were numerous conversations between the officer 
 
26 
 
and the driver with little apparent difficulty in communicating and the driver did not 
indicate that he did not understand).11 
 
We agree with those state supreme courts and adopt a reasonableness standard, as 
outlined below. 
5. Implications of the Reasonableness Standard. 
We are aware of several practical impacts as a result of our holding today. 
 
Principally, as we have consistently held, reading the DR-15 in English to a driver 
who speaks English will almost always suffice.  Cases where the driver does not speak 
English, however, require some other effort by police to inform the driver of the 
consequences of refusing to submit to a breath test.   
The MVA acknowledges the challenge of serving the diverse language needs of 
Maryland drivers.  It includes the implied consent law in a driver’s manual that is available 
in English, Spanish, Traditional Chinese, Vietnamese, French, Korean, and Nepali.12  It 
                                                 
11 As indicated above, there is a third line of cases (which neither party relies on) that have 
taken the position that non-English advisements are never needed.  Under Maryland’s 
implied consent law, we find these cases unpersuasive.  See, e.g., People v. Wegielnik, 605 
N.E.2d 487 (Ill. 1992) (“[W]e do not believe the purpose of the implied-consent statute is 
to advise drivers as to whether they should take blood-alcohol test, or to give them a choice 
between six- and three-month suspension,” rather the sole objective of the law was to 
encourage drivers to take alcohol concentration tests, which is inconsistent with 
requirement that the police provide foreign language advisements); see also State v. Tosar, 
350 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986); State v. Mung, 795 S.E.2d 284, 288 (N.C. Ct. 
App. 2016); State v. Hurbean, 261 N.E.2d 290, 298 (Ohio Ct. App. 1970); State v. 
Cabanilla, 273 P.3d 125, 132 (Or. 2012). 
12 
Maryland 
Drivers 
Manual, 
Motor 
Vehicle 
Admin., 
https://mva.maryland.gov/Pages/Maryland-Drivers-Manual.aspx (last visited June 24, 
2020), archived at https://perma.cc/72EK-P93X. 
 
27 
 
offers the driver license written exam in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, French, 
and Traditional Chinese.13  In addition, although oral tests are only given in English, the 
MVA allows applicants to use an interpreter.14 
It is not unreasonable to expect Maryland police officers, like the MVA, to 
acknowledge and accept the challenge of serving drivers who speak other languages.  As 
Officer Sharkey admitted at trial, Montgomery County provides translators and telephonic 
translation services to officers.  The MVA also provides resources to law enforcement 
agencies for the enforcement of Maryland motor vehicle laws, including a Spanish audio 
reading of the DR-15 form.15  We think it prudent, like the New Jersey Attorney General 
in response to Marquez, that the executive branch takes further steps to accommodate non-
English speaking Marylanders.  See Marquez, 998 A.2d at 437–38.  The MVA could, for 
example, (1) arrange for certified translated versions of the DR-15—in both written and 
audio form—in the foreign languages in which the MVA offers the written driver’s test; 
(2) post translated written and audio files on its website, like it does in English and Spanish; 
and (3) send an advisory to all police departments to notify them of those developments. 
                                                 
13 
Driver 
Licensing, 
Knowledge 
Test, 
Motor 
Vehicle 
Admin, 
https://mva.maryland.gov/drivers/Pages/rookie-driver-tutorial-intro.aspx (last visited June 
24, 2020), archived at https://perma.cc/B8TF-PR7W.   
14 Id. 
15 
Information 
for 
Law 
Enforcement, 
Motor 
Vehicle 
Admin., 
https://mva.maryland.gov/Pages/police.aspx (last visited June 24, 2020), archived at 
https://perma.cc/7ZLV-5FWP. 
 
28 
 
We recognize that complications may arise even with the use of translated written 
documents and audio translations.  For example, drivers may ask police officers follow-up 
questions that will go unanswered.  But, as we have noted, “the Advice of Rights form need 
not inform a detained driver of every possible enticement for taking an alcohol 
concentration test and by analogy of every single possible permutation of the consequences 
of either failing or refusing to take an alcohol concentration test.”  Seenath, 448 Md. at 
191.  Again, sufficient advice of rights is a low hurdle, and is satisfied as long as the steps 
taken by the officer are reasonable under the circumstances. 
We also recognize the time-sensitive nature of collecting blood and breath samples. 
With the large number of potential languages involved, it is not practical to expect that 
interpreters will always be available on short notice.  “Precious time would be wasted in 
locating and transporting police officers or interpreters able to ‘read’ the standard statement 
in a particular language, and we do not construe the statute so narrowly as to require that 
approach.”  Marquez, 998 A.2d at 438 (citation omitted).  Providing a translated copy of 
the DR-15 form, directing the driver’s attention to the translated form, and playing an audio 
translation from the MVA website would be sufficient in most scenarios.  Still, there exists 
the possibility of future cases involving less commonly spoken foreign languages which is 
precisely why we adopt a reasonableness standard and not the strict approach adopted in 
Marquez.  The reasonableness standard strikes the right balance between deterring drunk 
driving and advising the driver of the consequences of taking or refusing a breath test. 
The standard, therefore, must be an objective one.  It is no defense for a driver to 
claim that they were too drunk to understand the advice of rights and it is not necessary for 
 
29 
 
the State to prove that the driver actually subjectively understood the warnings.  To that 
end, warnings given in English are presumptively sufficient.  Whether there is sufficient 
evidence to sustain a motion to suppress the breath test on sufficiency of advice grounds 
will depend on the facts of the particular case.   
6. Application and Disposition of This Case. 
While a court need not hear evidence on the admissibility of evidence outside the 
presence of the jury in all cases, such a procedure is often advisable and may be required 
in the interests of justice.  Md. Rule 5-104(c).  This is because, among other reasons, the 
evidence relevant to the determination might not be appropriate for the jury in advance of 
a decision on admissibility.  For example, under Rule 5-104(d), a criminal defendant may 
testify with respect to a preliminary matter of admissibility and does not become, by virtue 
of giving that testimony, “subject to cross-examination as to other issues in the case.” 
When Mr. Portillo moved to suppress evidence of the breath test, he put before the 
trial court a preliminary question of admissibility that the court was obligated to determine, 
Md. Rule 5-104(a), and state its factual findings on the record.  Md. Rule 4-252.   The 
purpose of this requirement is to enable appellate review.  See Boyd v. State, 399 Md. 457, 
475 (2007); see also Goodwin, 199 Md. at 129–30 (“Obviously, then, if there is no factual 
statement or conclusion, there is no reason for the appellate court to examine the record 
with an evidentiary slant in favor of the appellee in order to sustain a non-existent 
presumption.”). 
The trial court erred in several respects.  First, the court should have exercised its 
discretion to take evidence on Mr. Portillo’s motions prior to trial and outside the presence 
 
30 
 
of the jury.  Md. Rules 4-252(g)(1), 5-104(c); see State v. Brown, 324 Md. 532, 539 n.l 
(1991) (“In this State, a hearing is customarily held in connection with the determination 
of any motion to suppress filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-252.  Where a factual dispute 
is central to the resolution of the motion an evidentiary hearing is required.”).  
Further, it was not necessary for Mr. Portillo to request a separate pretrial hearing, 
as the trial court stated, regardless of whether the filed motion was styled a “Motion in 
Limine” or a “Motion to Suppress.”16  On an earlier occasion, the circuit court granted the 
State’s motion to postpone and scheduled a hearing on Mr. Portillo’s motions and his trial 
for July 22, 2019.  The docket entries show that on June 25, 2019, the court granted the 
State’s motion to postpone because a witness was unavailable and the court therefore 
“POSTPONE[D] [THE] CASE FOR A RULE 4-252 HEARING AND A ONE (1) DAY 
JURY TRIAL ON JULY 22, 2019 AT 8:30 A.M.”  Mr. Portillo should have been afforded 
all of the procedures required at a Rule 4-252 hearing. 
Lastly, the trial court erred when it failed to make a finding, on the record, whether 
Officer Sharkey provided sufficient advice of rights by reading the DR-15 form to a driver 
with limited English proficiency.  When defense counsel first renewed the motion to 
suppress during Officer Sharkey’s testimony, the court declared that whether Mr. Portillo 
understood English “goes to weight, not the admissibility of it.”  Later, when it denied the 
motion, the court twice stated that it did not have any “evidence” that Mr. Portillo did not 
                                                 
16 The State conceded at oral argument that the pre-trial hearing was a Rule 4-252 
suppression hearing and that both motions in limine were essentially motions to suppress 
evidence that was allegedly obtained illegally. 
 
31 
 
understand English.  The record, however, is replete with evidence that Mr. Portillo did not 
understand English, from Officer Sharkey’s admission that he was concerned that Mr. 
Portillo only spoke Spanish to Mr. Portillo’s repeated protests that his “language is 
Spanish” and his inability to answer basic questions and follow instructions.   
Whether or not the police complied with TR § l6-205.1 and Mr. Portillo’s right to 
due process by reading Mr. Portillo the advisements in English were preliminary questions 
of admissibility.  To resolve the issues, and to enable appellate review, the court should 
have made an assessment, based on the evidence before it, whether Mr. Portillo understood 
English sufficiently to enable him to make a reasonably informed election. 
To remedy these errors, we could order a limited remand.  Although limited remands 
are relatively infrequent actions taken by this Court, our cases are “replete with examples 
where a limited remand is proper.” Montgomery Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesson, 399 Md. 314, 
334 (2007); see Southern v. State, 371 Md. 93, 104–05 (2002) (collecting cases).  A limited 
remand is proper where the purposes of “justice will be served by permitting further 
proceedings,” see Md. Rule 8-604(d)(1), and the issue is discrete from the issue at trial, 
Southern, 371 Md. at 104–05, such as cases like this where the trial court failed to make 
findings of fact and effectively failed to rule on the suppression motion prior to trial.  This 
is not the case of Southern v. State, where a party failed to meet the party’s burden on issues 
raised in a completed suppression hearing—here, we would not be “reopen[ing] the 
suppression proceeding for the taking of additional evidence after [we] held the party has 
failed to meet its evidentiary burden.”  Id. at 105.  Rather, the trial court here, despite 
holding a pretrial hearing, did not hear any evidence on the motion and did not make any 
 
32 
 
findings on the record.  Once Mr. Portillo sought to suppress the breath test, it was the 
State’s burden, as the proponent of the breath test evidence, to satisfy the court that Officer 
Sharkey complied with TR § 16-205.1.  See Loscomb v. State, 45 Md. App. 598, 613 
(1980), aff’d, 291 Md. 424 (1981).  The court’s determination that understanding the 
advisements “goes to the weight” and that Mr. Portillo could “argue at cross” do not satisfy 
the motions hearing requirement of Rule 4-252(g) that “[i]f factual issues are involved in 
determining the motion, the court shall state its findings on the record.” 
Although a limited remand would be a proper remedy, we do not think it is necessary 
to relitigate facts—that were sufficiently developed at trial—in a de novo suppression 
hearing.  Instead, we hold that, based on the trial record before us, the State cannot meet 
the reasonableness standard adopted today.  While we do not typically consider trial 
evidence when reviewing an appeal of the denial of a suppression motion, where (as here) 
there is no separate suppression hearing and the trial judge holds a de facto suppression 
hearing during the trial, we can and should review the trial record and decide the 
suppression issue because the record is sufficiently developed.17   
There is substantial evidence that Mr. Portillo did not understand the DR-15 
advisements.  Further, despite the time-sensitive nature of blood alcohol testing, there is no 
                                                 
17 In another case, where there is a motion to suppress breath test evidence, and the trial 
court (1) declines to hold a suppression hearing, and (2) in the trial, admits the breath test 
through the officer’s testimony but refuses to allow cross-examination about the allegedly 
unreasonable nature of the advisements, a limited remand would be necessary and 
appropriate to conduct a suppression hearing to allow the trial judge to make a finding on 
reasonableness in the first instance. That is not this scenario. 
 
33 
 
legitimate concern that the investigation would have been delayed or hindered by providing 
Mr. Portillo with a Spanish version of the DR-15.  It would have cost Officer Sharkey near-
zero time to (1) indicate to Mr. Portillo that there was a Spanish translation on the back of 
the DR-15; (2) dial the language translator hotline; and/or (3) play the Spanish translation 
audio file from the MVA website.  At no point in the advisement did Officer Sharkey 
indicate to Mr. Portillo that there was a Spanish translation on the back of the form.  
Further, Officer Sharkey never attempted to “read” the advisements in Spanish.  While it 
is unclear whether Officer Sharkey or Mr. Portillo flipped over the DR-15 form to show 
the Spanish translation, it makes no difference whether Mr. Portillo actually read the DR-
15 form because Officer Sharkey constructed a severe road block, unduly burdening Mr. 
Portillo’s decision-making.18  Officer Sharkey’s actions were not objectively reasonable. 
We reverse and remand for a new trial at which the breath test evidence must be 
suppressed.  We next address the field sobriety test evidence. 
B. 
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. 
In his “Motion in Limine to Suppress Field Sobriety Tests,” Mr. Portillo argued that 
(1) evidence related to his field sobriety tests was inadmissible because it was unduly 
prejudicial; (2) the evidence was not “rationally based on the witness’ perception because 
the defendant only spoke Spanish and the tests were administered in English;” and (3) the 
                                                 
18 Nor do we give any weight to the fact that Mr. Portillo actually signed the DR-15 form.  
Indeed, the way the form is currently structured, when a driver signs the DR-15 form 
certification, they are indicating that they were read the advisements in English and Spanish 
in every case, regardless of the language they speak. 
 
34 
 
administration of the field sobriety tests in English violated the Equal Protection Clause of 
the Fourteenth Amendment.  The trial court denied the motion, concluding that “any issues 
concerning the individual’s ability to understand are going to be issues . . . to explore on 
cross-examination.”  The court found “that there is a rational basis to permit the officer[’s] 
testimony concerning his observations during the field sobriety tests are admissible.”  Mr. 
Portillo renews his contentions on appeal.   
The State responds that (1) the trial court had broad discretion to admit the field 
sobriety evidence; (2) the court did not abuse that discretion; and (3) Mr. Portillo has not 
alleged an actionable Equal Protection claim.  According to the State, the trial court 
properly denied Mr. Portillo’s motions.19  We agree. 
                                                 
19 The State also argues that Mr. Portillo “affirmatively waived” his challenge to the field 
sobriety evidence by articulating to the court that he had “no objection” to Officer 
Sharkey’s body camera footage showing the field sobriety tests.  In general, “where a party 
makes a motion in limine to exclude irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible evidence, and that 
evidence is subsequently admitted, the party who made the motion ordinarily must object 
at the time the evidence is actually offered to preserve [its] objection for appellate review.”  
Brown v. State, 373 Md. 234, 242 (2003) (quoting Reed v. State, 353 Md. 628, 637 (1999)).  
The procedural errors at the pre-trial hearing and trial, discussed in Part A.6 above, 
complicate this case.  If we hold that Mr. Portillo waived his argument, we would be 
penalizing him for following the trial court’s directions about how to litigate his motion 
after the court held an insufficient suppression hearing.  When the court denied the motion 
prior to trial, it advised defense counsel that whether Mr. Portillo understood the field 
sobriety tests “goes to the weight.  That, you can argue at cross”—which is exactly what 
Mr. Portillo did.   
Technically, Mr. Portillo could have objected to the admission of the field sobriety 
test video evidence when it was offered at trial and still had an opportunity to attack the 
evidence on cross examination.  However, we refuse to permit form over substance in this 
scenario—on several occasions during trial, defense counsel reminded the court that he 
was going to renew his motions in limine to suppress only to be rebuffed by the court.  
Defense counsel was not “sandbagging” and he gave “the trial court the opportunity to 
correct possible mistakes in its rulings.”  Fisher v. State, 367 Md. 218, 240 (2001). 
 
35 
 
1. Standard of Review. 
An appellate court reviews de novo a trial court’s determination as to whether 
evidence is relevant.  Ford v. State, 462 Md. 3, 46 (2018).  On the other hand, a ruling on 
the admission of evidence under Maryland Rules 5-403 and 5-701 is reviewed for abuse of 
discretion.  Id.; Robinson v. State, 348 Md. 104, 118–19 (1997).  In general, an appellate 
court reviews without deference a claim that a defendant’s constitutional rights have been 
violated.  Stokes v. State, 362 Md. 407, 414 (2001).  The specific standard of review 
applicable to an Equal Protection challenge varies depending on the nature of the 
discrimination alleged.  See Trotman v. State, 466 Md. 237, 256 n.8 (2019) (discussing 
difference between strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests). 
2. Admissibility of Field Sobriety Evidence. 
Generally, the admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the 
trial court.  Kelly v. State, 392 Md. 511, 530 (2006); Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391, 
404 (1997).  Relevant evidence is generally admissible and evidence is relevant if it tends 
to prove or disprove a material fact in dispute.  See Md. Rules 5-401, 5-402.  Courts may 
exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger 
of unfair prejudice or other countervailing concerns.  See Md. Rule 5-403.  Once a 
relevancy determination is made, courts “are generally loath to reverse a trial court unless 
the evidence is plainly inadmissible under a specific rule or principle of law or there is a 
clear showing of an abuse of discretion.”  Merzbacher, 346 Md. at 404–05.  This Court 
therefore will not reverse a trial court’s decision to admit relevant evidence over an 
objection that the evidence is unfairly prejudicial absent an abuse of discretion. 
 
36 
 
As a practical matter, we agree with Mr. Portillo that adequate performance on field 
sobriety tests requires a basic understanding of the tests.  A person with limited English 
proficiency is likely going to struggle understanding the parameters of the tests even if, as 
here, the tests are physically demonstrated by the officer.  As an evidentiary matter, 
however, unlike a breath test, field sobriety tests are not “protected” by advice of rights 
requirements.   
We disagree with Mr. Portillo that the field sobriety evidence was not relevant—in 
a drunk driving case, any evidence that tends to prove that the driver was impaired by 
alcohol is relevant to the case and probative of that fact.  We also disagree with the crux of 
Mr. Portillo’s argument that the field sobriety evidence contained unhelpful lay opinion 
testimony under Rule 5-701 and was unduly prejudicial under Rule 5-403 because Officer 
Sharkey instructed Mr. Portillo in English rather than Spanish. 
Opinion testimony by a lay witness is proper when those opinions “are (1) rationally 
based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the 
witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”  Md. Rule 5-701.  Officer 
Sharkey’s testimony was helpful lay testimony.20  He testified to his firsthand observations 
                                                 
20 Mr. Portillo does not argue that Officer Sharkey did not qualify as an expert witness, 
despite our holding in State v. Blackwell that an officer’s “testimony about [the driver’s] 
performance on the HGN test constituted expert testimony subject to the strictures of Md. 
Rule 5-702.”  408 Md. 677, 691 (2009).  At trial, the parties agreed that “no expert opinion 
was given.”  On the HGN test, the court instructed the jury that “You have heard evidence 
concerning the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  As with any other evidence, 
it is for you to decide how much weight to give this evidence.  In deciding what weight is 
to be given the evidence, you should consider the training and experience of the technician, 
the equipment that was used and the procedures that were followed.” 
 
37 
 
at the scene.  The testimony was helpful because it showed the jury why the officers 
arrested Mr. Portillo.  Without the testimony, there would have been little factual 
explanation (1) of how Officer Sharkey came upon Mr. Portillo and (2) of why the officers 
arrested Mr. Portillo.  As with any other evidence, it is for the jury to decide the weight of 
that evidence.   
Further, the evidence was not unduly prejudicial under Rule 5-403.  A driver’s 
confusion or inability to follow instructions is circumstantial evidence of that driver’s 
impairment.  Cf. Ford, 462 Md. at 47 (“[I]f relevant, circumstantial evidence regarding a 
defendant’s conduct may be admissible under M[aryland] Rule 5-403 . . . .”) (quoting 
Decker v. State, 408 Md. 631, 640 (2009)).  Like most circumstantial evidence, there might 
be innocent explanations for the evidence.  That does not mean that the evidence is unduly 
prejudicial under Rule 5-403.  Id. at 50 (“Simply because there is a possibility that there 
exists some innocent, or alternate, explanation for the conduct does not mean that the 
proffered evidence is per se inadmissible.” (quoting Thomas v. State, 297 Md. 557, 578 
(2007)).  Mr. Portillo had—and took—the opportunity at trial to offer the innocent 
explanation that he did not understand the field sobriety test instructions.  The trial court 
did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to introduce video footage and Officer 
Sharkey’s testimony regarding the field sobriety tests. 
3. Equal Protection Claim.  
Mr. Portillo claims that he was entitled to suppression of the field sobriety test 
evidence under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  He argues that 
 
38 
 
by administering the field sobriety test in English, Officer Sharkey discriminated against 
him because he has limited English proficiency.   
We, of course, agree with the general proposition that discrimination based on 
national origin or proficiency in a particular language may violate the Fourteenth 
Amendment.  We do not agree, however, that the proper remedy for such violations is 
necessarily suppression of evidence otherwise lawfully obtained.  Mr. Portillo has not 
stated, and we have not found, any Maryland or Supreme Court authority recognizing an 
exclusionary remedy in a criminal case for violations of the Equal Protection Clause.  See 
Ford v. State, 184 Md. App. 535, 571 (2009) (“Maryland does not have an independent 
exclusionary rule.”); United States v. Nichols, 512 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 2008) (while 
“checking individuals for outstanding warrants in an intentionally racially discriminatory 
manner may violate the Equal Protection Clause . . . we are aware of no court[21] that has 
                                                 
21 The Massachusetts and New Jersey high courts have expanded the exclusionary rule to 
permit suppression in certain Equal Protection related cases.  See Commonwealth v. Lora, 
886 N.E.2d 688 (Mass. 2008); State v. Segars, 799 A.2d 541 (N.J. 2002).  Several 
commenters have advocated for an expansion, especially in the context of pretextual stops.  
See, e.g., Albert W. Alschuler, Racial Profiling and the Constitution, 2002 U. Chi. Legal 
F. 163, 254; Brooks Holland, Racial Profiling and a Punitive Exclusionary Rule, 20 Temp. 
Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 29 (2010); Brooks Holland, Safeguarding Equal Protection Rights: 
The Search for an Exclusionary Rule Under the Equal Protection Clause, 37 Am. Crim. L. 
Rev. 1107, 1110 (2000); Lawrence W. Williamson, Note, Profiling, Pretext, and Equal 
Protection: Protecting Citizens From Pretextual Stops Through the Fourteenth 
Amendment, 42 Washburn L.J. 657 (2003). 
 
39 
 
ever applied the exclusionary rule for a violation of [that] Clause”).  We decline Mr. 
Portillo’s invitation to craft such a remedy at this time. 
In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the field sobriety 
evidence.  That evidence will be admissible on re-trial, should the State choose to present 
it. 
CONCLUSION 
 
Sufficient advice of rights in a drunk driving case is a low hurdle, but we refuse to 
reduce that hurdle to a line on the pavement.  Justice is not served if required advice of 
rights is debased to a formality satisfied by reading the advice in English to a non-English 
speaking driver.  We hold that officers must use methods that reasonably convey the 
warnings and rights in the implied consent statute.  This is an objective standard and does 
not depend on the subjective understanding of the driver.  A driver’s inability to understand 
English and consequent inability to comprehend the advice of rights is a factual issue when 
presented in a motion to suppress.  Likewise, whether the actions of the officer reasonably 
conveyed the warnings and rights in the implied consent statute is an issue of fact to be 
determined by the suppression court.  Officer Sharkey’s actions were not reasonable.  We 
therefore reverse and remand for a new trial at which the breath test evidence must be 
suppressed.   
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR 
MONTGOMERY COUNTY AFFIRMED IN 
PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  CASE 
REMANDED 
TO 
THAT 
COURT 
FOR 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT 
WITH THIS OPINION.  COSTS IN THIS 
COURT TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 
 
ADVICE OF RIGHTS – (Maryland Transportation Article §16-205.1)
You have been stopped or detained and reasonable grounds exist to believe that you have been driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle under circumstances 
requiring that you be asked to submit to a test under Maryland Transportation Article §16-205.1. In this situation, the law deems that you have consented to take a test 
to measure the alcohol concentration or drug or controlled dangerous substance content in your system. You may refuse to submit to the test(s), unless you were in a 
motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of or life-threatening injury to another person.
Suspension of Your Maryland Driver’s License or Driving Privilege:
If you refuse to submit to the test, or if you submit to the test and the result indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time of testing, your Maryland 
driver’s license shall be confiscated, you will be issued an Order of Suspension and, if eligible, a temporary license valid for 45 days. The following periods of suspension 
shall be imposed against your license or privilege to drive in Maryland:
	
If you refuse to submit to a test, your suspension shall be 270 days for a 1st offense and 2 years for a 2nd or subsequent offense.
	
If your test result is an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15, your suspension shall be 180 days. If the offense involves a motor vehicle 
accident that resulted in the death of another person, your suspension shall be 6 months for a 1st offense and 1 year for a 2nd or subsequent offense.
	
If your test result is an alcohol concentration of 0.08 but less than 0.15, your suspension may be modified or a restricted license may be issued at a hearing. 
	
If your test result is an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more, your suspension shall be 180 days for a 1st offense and 270 days for a 2nd or subsequent 
offense. If the offense involves a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of another person, your suspension shall be 1 year for a 1st offense and for a 
2nd or subsequent offense your license shall be revoked.
	
If you refuse a test, or take a test with a result of 0.15 or more, you shall be ineligible for modification of your suspension or the issuance of a restricted 
license, unless you participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program under Maryland Transportation Article §16-404.1. 
	
If you hold a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and were driving a non-commercial motor vehicle when you were stopped, and you refuse to submit to a test, 
your CDL or privilege shall be disqualified for 1 year for a 1st offense or for life if your CDL or privilege has been previously disqualified for at least 1 year under 
Maryland Transportation Article §16-812 (a) or (b), a federal law, or any other state’s law. 
	
If you were operating a commercial motor vehicle and your test result indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more, or if you refuse to submit to a test, your 
commercial driver’s license or privilege shall be disqualified for a period of 1 year for a 1st offense, 3 years for a 1st offense committed while transporting hazardous 
materials required to be placarded, and disqualified for life if your commercial driver’s license has been previously disqualified for at least 1 year and/or you have 
incurred 2 offenses of Maryland Transportation Article §16-812 (a) or (b), a federal law, or any substantially similar offense(s) under any other state’s law.
	
If you are convicted of a drunk or drugged driving offense under Maryland Transportation Article §21-902, and the judge or jury finds beyond a reasonable 
doubt that you knowingly refused to take a test of breath arising out of the same circumstances, an additional criminal penalty of not more than $500 or imprisonment for 
not more than 2 months, or both, may be imposed under Maryland Transportation Article §27-101 (x).
	
If you are convicted of a drunk or drugged driving offense under Maryland Transportation Article §21-902 (b) or (c), and the judge or jury  
finds beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly refused to take a test of breath arising out of the same circumstances, the Court shall require you, under Maryland 
Transportation Article §27-107.1, to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for 1 year pursuant to Maryland Transportation Article §16-404.1.
You may request an Administrative Hearing at any time within 30 days of the date of the Order of Suspension to show cause why your driver’s license or privilege 
should not be suspended. You must request a hearing within 10 days of the date of the Order of Suspension to ensure that your privilege to drive is not suspended prior to 
your hearing. Your request for a hearing must be made in writing. You may use the “Hearing Request” form if available. Send your request to the Office of Administrative 
Hearings at 11101 Gilroy Rd., Hunt Valley, MD 21031-1301. You must include a check or money order for $150.00, which is the required filing fee, made payable to the 
“Maryland State Treasurer.” Your request for a hearing will be invalid if submitted without the required $150.00 filing fee or applicable fee waiver.
Your driver’s license or privilege will be suspended on the 46th day after the Order of Suspension if you do not request a hearing within 10 days of the 
date of the Order of Suspension or, if eligible, you do not elect within 30 days of the Order of Suspension to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program. In 
order to receive credit for the suspension, you must surrender your driver’s license or certify that you no longer have the license in your possession. 
If you submit a valid hearing request, a suspension will not be imposed unless a decision is rendered against you, or if you fail to appear for the hearing.
Instead of requesting a hearing or upon the suspension or revocation of your driver’s license, you may elect to participate in the Ignition Interlock System 
Program if the following conditions are met: 1) your driver’s license is not currently suspended, revoked, canceled, or refused; and 2) within 30 days of the date of this 
Order of Suspension you a) elect in writing to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for 1 year if your test resulted in an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or 
more or you refused the test or 6 months if your test resulted in an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15; and b) surrender a valid Maryland driver’s 
license or sign a statement certifying that the license is no longer in your possession. An Ignition Interlock Election form is located on the reverse side of the driver’s copy 
of the Order of Suspension.
Certification: I, the Undersigned Police Officer, certify under the penalties of perjury, that I have advised the driver of the above stated rights and sanctions and 
have provided the driver with the aforementioned advice in: English and Spanish.
Certificación: Yo, el oficial de policía abajo firmante, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que he aconsejado al conductor acerca de sus derechos y sanciones arriba 
mencionados, y que le he proporcionado la notificación arriba mencionada al conductor en: inglés y español.
Signature of Officer_
_____________________________________ 	I.D. No._ ___________________	Police Agency__________________________________
	
Firma del Oficial	
N.º de Identificación	
I.E Agencia de Policía
Read before Signing: I, the undersigned driver, acknowledge that I have been read or I have read the above stated Advice of Rights as certified by the police 
officer. I understand that this requested test is in addition to any preliminary tests that were taken.
Leer Antes de Firmar: Yo, el conductor abajo firmante, reconozco que me han leído o he leído la Notificación de Derechos arriba mencionada según lo certifica 
el oficial de policía. Comprendo que esta prueba solicitada es adicional a cualquier prueba preliminar que se haya realizado.
Having been so advised, do you now agree to submit to a test? (Officer check driver’s reply)
Habiendo sido de este modo notificado, está Usted de acuerdo ahora en someterse a la prueba? (Oficial, revise la respuesta del conductor)
❑	Yes - Agree to submit to an alcohol concentration test	 ❑	Yes - Agree to submit to a test for drug or controlled dangerous substance (CDS)
	
Sí – Acepta someterse a una prueba de concentración	
	
Sí – Acepta someterse a una prueba de drogas o sustancias peligrosas controladas (CDS)
	
de alcohol en la sangre
❑	No - Alcohol concentration test, refused	
❑	No - Drug or CDS test refused (DRE must complete & submit DRE Certification Form)
	
No – La prueba de concentración de alcohol en la 	
	
No – La prueba de drogas o CDS ha sido rechazada 
	
sangre ha sido rechazada
Signature of Driver________________________________ 	Date__________________	 Time________________	 DR-015A Control #___________________
	
Firma del conductor	
Fecha	
Hora
DR-015 (10-16)
NOTIFICACIÓN DE DERECHOS - (Artículo de Transporte de Maryland, Sección 16-205.1)
A Usted lo han parado o detenido y existen motivos razonables para creer que estaba conduciendo o intentaba conducir un vehículo motorizado bajo circunstancias que requieren que se 
le solicite que se someta a una prueba según la Sección 16205.1 del Artículo de Transporte de Maryland. En esta situación, la ley considera que Usted ha consentido tomar una prueba 
para medir la concentración de alcohol o drogas o el contenido de sustancias controladas peligrosas en su cuerpo. Usted puede rehusar tomar las pruebas, a menos que Usted estuviese 
en un accidente de tráfico que haya resultado en la muerte o en una lesión que amenace la vida de otra persona.
Suspensión de su Licencia de Conducir de Maryland o Privilegio de Conducir:
Si Usted rehusa someterse a la prueba, o se realiza la prueba y el resultado indica una concentración de alcohol de 0.08 o más en el momento de la prueba, su licencia de conducir 
de Maryland será confiscada, se le expedirá una Orden de Suspensión y, si es elegible, una licencia temporal válida por 45 días. Se impondrán los siguientes períodos de suspensión 
en contra de su licencia o del privilegio de conducir en Maryland:
	
Si Usted rehusa someterse a una prueba, su suspensión será de 270 días por una primera infracción y de 2 años por una segunda y subsiguiente infracción.
	
Si su prueba resulta es una concentración de alcohol de por lo menos 0.08 pero inferior a 0.15, la suspensión será de 180 días. Si la infracción involucra un accidente 
automovilístico que resultó en la muerte de otra persona la suspensión será de 6 meses por la primera infracción y de 1 año por una segunda o subsiguiente infracción.
	
Si el resultado de la prueba es una concentración de alcohol de por lo menos 0.08 pero inferior a 0.15, su suspensión puede ser modificada o se le puede expedir una 
licencia restrictiva en una audiencia.
	
Si el resultado de la prueba es una concentración de alcohol de 0.15 o más, la suspensión será de 180 días por una primera infracción y 270 días por una segunda o 
subsiguiente infracción. Si la infracción involucra un accidente de tráfico que resultó en la muerte de otra persona la suspensión será de 1 año por la primera infracción 
y por una segunda o subsiguiente infracción su licencia será revocada.
	
Si Usted rehusa tomar una prueba o toma la prueba con un resultado de 0.15 o más, no será elegible para que le modifiquen su suspensión o para que le expidan 
una licencia restrictiva, a menos que participe en el Programa del Sistema Interruptor de Encendido (Ignition Interlock System Program) conforme a la Sección 16-
404.1 del Artículo de Transporte de Maryland.
	
Si Usted posee una licencia para conducir vehículos comerciales (CDL, en sus siglas en inglés) y estaba conduciendo un vehículo motorizado no comercial cuando lo 
pararon, y rehusa someterse a una prueba, su CDL o el privilegio de conducir será descalificado por 1 año por una primera infracción o de por vida si su CDL o el privilegio ha sido 
descalificado anteriormente al menos por 1 año bajo la Sección 16-812 (a) o (b) del Artículo del Transporte de Maryland, una ley federal, o cualquier otra ley estatal.
	
Si Usted estaba conduciendo un vehículo motorizado comercial y el resultado de la prueba indica una concentración de alcohol de 0.04 o más, o si Usted rehusa 
someterse a la prueba, su licencia comercial de conducir o privilegio de conducir será descalificado por el período de 1 año por la primera infracción, por 3 años por la primera 
infracción cometida al transportar materiales peligrosos que deben rotularse, y se descalificaran de por vida si su licencia comercial de conducir ha sido descalificada previamente 
al menos por 1 año y/o cometió 2 infracciones conforme a la Sección 16-812(a) o (b) del Artículo de Transporte de Maryland, una ley federal, o cualesquier otra(s) infracción(es) 
sustancialmente similar(es) bajo cualquier otra ley estatal.
	
Si se le condena por la infracción de conducir ebrio o drogado bajo la Sección §21-902 del Artículo de Transporte de Maryland, y el juez o jurado considera, más allá 
de toda duda razonable, que Usted se negó a sabiendas a tomar una prueba de aliento que resulta de las mismas circunstancias, se le puede imponer una sanción penal adicional de 
no más de $500 o encarcelamiento por no más de 2 meses, o ambas sanciones, bajo la Sección 21-902 (x) del Artículo de Transporte de Maryland.
	
Si se le declara culpable por el delito de conducir embriagado o drogado bajo la Sección 21-902 (b) o (c), y el juez o el jurado concluye más allá de toda duda razonable 
que Usted a sabiendas se negó a tomar una prueba de aliento que resulta de las mismas circunstancias. el Tribunal podrá requerir, bajo la Sección 27-107.1 del Artículo de 
Transporte de Maryland, que participe en el Programa del Sistema Interruptor de Encendido (Ignition Interlock System Program) durante 1 año conforme a la Sección 16-404.1 del 
Artículo de Transporte de Maryland.
	
Usted puede solicitar una Audiencia Administrativa en cualquier momento en un plazo de 30 días a partir de la fecha de la Orden de Suspensión para aducir con buenos 
argumentos por qué su licencia de conducir o el privilegio de conducir no deben ser suspendidos. Usted debe solicitar una audiencia dentro del plazo de 10 días a partir de la fecha 
de la Orden de Suspensión para asegurar que su privilegio de conducir no se suspenda antes de su audiencia. Su solicitud para obtener una audiencia debe hacerse por escrito. Usted 
puede usar el formulario titulado “Solicitud de Audiencia”, si está disponible. Envíe su solicitud a la Oficina de Audiencias Administrativas: Office of Administrative Hearings, 
11101 Gilroy Rd., Hunt Valley, MD 21031-1301. Debe incluir un cheque o giro postal por $150.00, que es la tarifa requirida, pagadero al “Maryland State Treasurer”. Su petición 
de audiencia no será válida si se envía sin el pago requerido de $150.00 o sin la exención de la tasa aplicable.
	
Su Licencia o Privilegio de Conducir serán suspendidos a los 46 días posteriores de la Orden de Suspensión si Usted no solicita una audiencia dentro 10 días a partir 
de la fecha de la Orden de Suspensión o, si es elegible, Usted no elige participar dentro de los 30 días a partir de la fecha de la Orden de Suspensión en el Programa del Sistema 
Interruptor de Encendido (Ignition Interlock System Program). Para recibir crédito por la suspensión, debe entregar su licencia de manejo o certificar que ya no tiene la licencia 
en su posesión. Si Usted presenta una solicitud de audiencia válida, no se impondrá una suspensión a menos que se tome una decisión en su contra, o si Usted no comparece a la 
audiencia.
	
En lugar de solicitar una audiencia, o tras la suspensión o revocación de su licencia de manejo, Usted puede elegir participar en el Programa del Sistema 
Interruptor de Encendido (Ignition Interlock System Program) si se cumplen las condiciones siguientes: 1) su licencia de conducir no está actualmente suspendida, revocada, 
cancelada, o denegada; 2) en un plazo de 30 días a partir de la fecha de esta Orden de la Suspensión Usted a) elige por escrito participar en el Programa del Sistema Interruptor 
de Encendido (Ignition Interlock System Program) por 1 año, si su prueba resultó en una concentración de alcohol de 0.15 o más, o si se negó a hacerse la prueba; o por 6 meses, 
si su prueba resultó en una concentración de alcohol de 0.08 pero menos de 0.15; y b) entrega su licencia de conducir de Maryland válida o firma una declaración certificando 
que la licencia ya no está en su posesión. En el reverso de la copia del conductor de la Orden de Suspensión se encuentra un formulario para seleccionar el Programa del Sistema 
Interruptor de Encendido (Ignition Interlock System Program).
DR-015 (10-16)