Printable Format8-1025.
History: L. 2012, ch. 172, § 2; L. 2013, ch. 122, § 5; L. 2015, ch. 56, § 3; L. 2018, ch. 7, § 6; Repealed, L. 2019, ch. 13, § 5; April 18.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Don't Hold Your Breath: Kansas's Criminal Refusal Law Is on a Collision Course with the U.S. Constitution," Taryn Alexandra Locke, 52 W.L.J. 289 (2013).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. District court's decision to exclude stipulation of a prior DUI conviction from jury instructions was an abuse of discretion where prior convictions established an element of the crime. State v. Mburu, 51 Kan. App. 2d 266, 270-71, 346 P.3d 1086 (2015).
2. 2014 version of statute unconstitutionally criminalizes refusal to submit to a breath test and imposes an unconstitutional condition on the privilege to drive. State v. Wycoff, 303 Kan. 885, 886, 367 P.3d 1258 (2016).
3. 2014 version of statute is facially unconstitutional as it criminally punishes a driver who exercises the right to withdraw consent to a search. State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 963, 368 P.3d 342 (2016).
4. 2014 version of statute is facially unconstitutional as it criminally punishes a driver who exercises the right to withdraw consent to a search. State v. Wilson, 303 Kan. 973, 975, 368 P.3d 1086 (2016).
5. Statute criminalizing a suspect's right to withdraw consent implied by operation of K.S.A. 8-1001 and to refuse to submit to testing is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest and thus violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the United States constitution and is facially unconstitutional. State v. Kraemer, 52 Kan. App. 2d 686, 696, 371 P.3d 954 (2016).
6. Considering the United States supreme court decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), section is facially unconstitutional because it criminalizes an individual's withdrawal of consent to a search. State v. Ryce, 306 Kan. 682, 683, 396 P.3d 711 (2017); see also State v. Wycoff, 306 Kan. 677, 400 P.3d 646 (2017).