State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Plu Reh, Defendant–Appellant. (2026)

Plu Reh appeals following his conviction for operating while intoxicated—second offense, an aggravated misdemeanor in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2024). Reh claims on appeal that his breath-test results should have been suppressed because he was unable to consult with an interpreter fluent in his native language, Karenni, for implied consent.

Urbandale police stopped Reh following traffic violations. During the stop, an officer gave Reh instructions to complete field sobriety tests in English, and Reh was able to understand and perform the tests (while showing signs of intoxication). In the officer's view, it appeared Reh could understand English but was not a native speaker. Reh later shared he had lived in the United States for ten years.

Police transported Reh to the county jail, where Reh requested a Karenni interpreter. The officer tried to find a Karenni interpreter through the language line, but they didn't have one. Reh told the officer he also spoke some Burmese, so the officer offered the advisory either in English or through a Burmese interpreter. Reh requested the Burmese interpreter, who interpreted the implied-consent and section-804.20 advisories into Burmese. Reh later suggested he could have a friend interpret; the officer declined to involve the friend because the advisories should be interpreted verbatim. Reh signed the consent forms but later moved to suppress the inculpatory results of the breath test, which showed he was more than twice the legal limit.

In a detailed oral ruling, the district court described the pertinent facts as we've set them out above. The court observed that contemporaneous video depicted Reh responding appropriately to the officer's questions and instructions in English, as well as Reh “conversing with the Burmese interpreter without any issues.” The court emphasized the core legal question was whether the police “used reasonable efforts to convey the implied consent advisory to [Reh].” And the court concluded the police acted reasonably considering the unavailability of a Karenni interpreter, the time-sensitive nature of the breath test, and the unknown capability of Reh's “friend” as translator.

Reh entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the suppression issue for appeal. Our review is de novo, with deference to the fact-findings of the district court. State v. Garcia, 756 N.W.2d 216, 219–20 (Iowa 2008).

The governing test is whether police undertook “reasonable” efforts to convey the section-321J advisory to a defendant who does not speak English. Id. at 222. Whether the defendant appeared to understand the officer's English questions and commands is a relevant consideration. Id. at 223. So is the unavailability of an interpreter. State v. Baraki, 981 N.W.2d 693, 698–700 (Iowa 2022). No case law requires an officer to affirmatively engage less reliable methods of translation—like an automated internet service or Reh's “friend”—and we are not inclined to adopt such a rule for the first time.

After a complete review of the record, we have little to add to the district court's thorough oral ruling. The ruling accurately summarized the evidence and correctly applied the facts to the law. We affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e).

AFFIRMED.

Opinion by Buller, J.