one-leg-stand test in Kansas

2018A majority of the Washington Supreme Court recently held in State v. Mecham , 186 Wash. 2d 128 , 134, 380 P.3d 414 (2016), that these tests are a seizure but not a search when-as is true in Puccinelli's case-the driver has not yet been arrested and there's a reasonable basis for the DUI investigation.

2018A majority of the Washington Supreme Court recently held in State v. Mecham , 186 Wash. 2d 128 , 134, 380 P.3d 414 (2016), that these tests are a seizure but not a search when-as is true in Puccinelli's case-the driver has not yet been arrested and there's a reasonable basis for the DUI investigation.

2016At the conclusion of the field sobriety tests, Webb agreed to take a PBT, the results of which indicated his blood-alcohol level was .127." Webb, 50 Kan.

2015Recounting then the circumstances that for me supply a “minimum level of objective justification” for the PBT as explained in Edgar, 296 Kan. at 521 , I would cite: (1) Molitor’s admission of alcohol consumption; (2) the strong odor of alcohol on Molitor during the traffic stop; (3) Molitor’s watery and bloodshot eyes; (4) Molitor driving his vehicle into the curb while pulling over and stopping the vehicle with the right front tire halfway up tire curb; and (5) the indicators of impairment Molitor displayed during field sobriety tests when he lost his balance during the instruction phase of t

2015Recounting then the circumstances that for me supply a "minimum level of objective justification" for the PBT as explained in Edgar, 296 Kan. at 521 , I would cite: (1) Molitor's admission of alcohol consumption; (2) the strong odor of alcohol on Molitor during the traffic stop; (3) Molitor's watery and bloodshot eyes; (4) Molitor driving his vehicle into the curb while pulling over and stopping the vehicle with the right front tire halfway up the curb; and (5) the indicators of impairment Molitor displayed during field sobriety tests when he lost his balance during the instruction phase of th

2015The Court of Appeals listed “the factors supporting reasonable suspicion” as being “striking the curb, very strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, admission to drinking beer, losing balance during instruction phase of walk-and-turn test, and putting foot down on the one-leg-stand test.” Molitor, 46 Kan.

2015The Court of Appeals panel concluded reasonable suspicion existed because of Molitor’s “striking of the curb, very strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, admission to drinking beer, losing balance during instruction phase of [the] walk-and-turn test, and putting [his] foot down on the one-leg-stand test.” City of Wichita v. Molitor, 46 Kan.

2014Smith, 291 Kan. at 518-19 ; see also Campbell v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 25 Kan.

2012Combining this evidence, and relying upon Sullivan v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 15 Kan.

2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that

2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that

2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that

2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that

2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that

2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that

2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that

2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that