In Martin v. State, 113 Md. App. 190, 686 A.2d 1130 (1996), the Court explained that, under the Law Enforcement Officer's Bill of Rights, an officer facing criminal charges is entitled to suppression of only those statements that he or she was ordered to make: The objective fact that must be established before this prophylactic exclusionary rule is triggered is that the interrogating officer ordered the appellant to respond to the interrogation. Peripheral psychological pressures do not suffice. The subjective state of mind of the appellant is immaterial. As an historical fact, Lieutenant Schlossnagle either ordered the appellant to respond to the interrogation or he did not. Martin, 113 Md. App. at 208, 686 A.2d at 1139. In Martin, the exclusionary rule provided for by the LEBOR was not applicable because the defendant-officer was never given a direct order to answer questions. Therefore his voluntary statement was admissible. The Law Enforcement Officer's Bill of Rights (LEBOR) provides in pertinent part: This subtitle does not prevent any law enforcement agency from requiring a law enforcement officer under investigation to submit to ... interrogations which specifically relate to the subject matter of the investigation. This subtitle does not prevent a law enforcement agency from commencing any action which may lead to a punitive measure as a result of a law enforcement officer's refusal to submit to ... interrogation, after having been ordered to do so by the law enforcement agency. The results of any ... interrogation, as may be required by the law enforcement agency under this subparagraph are not admissible ... in any criminal proceedings against the law enforcement officer when the law enforcement officer has been ordered to submit thereto. .Md. Ann. Code art. 27, 728(b)(7)(ii)(1996).