8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2023Police can reasonably anticipate that such a driver might require monitoring, positioning, and support on the way to the hospital; that his blood may be drawn anyway, for diagnostic purposes, immediately on arrival; and that immediate medical treatment could delay (or otherwise distort the results of) a blood draw conducted later, upon receipt of a warrant, thus reducing its evidentiary value." 139 S. Ct. at 2537-38 . 11 Finally, it concluded: "When police have probable cause to believe a person has committed a drunk- driving offense and the driver's unconsciousness or stupor requires him to b 2023Police can reasonably anticipate that such a driver might require monitoring, positioning, and support on the way to the hospital; that his blood may be drawn anyway, for diagnostic purposes, immediately on arrival; and that immediate medical treatment could delay (or otherwise distort the results of) a blood draw conducted later, upon receipt of a warrant, thus reducing its evidentiary value." 139 S. Ct. at 2537-38 . 11 Finally, it concluded: "When police have probable cause to believe a person has committed a drunk- driving offense and the driver's unconsciousness or stupor requires him to b | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
2 sentences2020Stanton, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the briefs for appellee. 1 The opinion of the court was delivered by LUCKERT, C.J.: In this appeal, Trenton Michael Heim argues a warrantless blood test obtained under the implied consent statute was unconstitutional per Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___ , 136 S. Ct. 2160 , 195 L. 2020Stanton, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the briefs for appellee. 1 The opinion of the court was delivered by LUCKERT, C.J.: In this appeal, Trenton Michael Heim argues a warrantless blood test obtained under the implied consent statute was unconstitutional per Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___ , 136 S. Ct. 2160 , 195 L. | 3 | 2017–2020 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2017The Supreme Court concluded that "while the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, . . . [w]hether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances." 569 U.S. at ___ , 133 S. Ct. at 1563 . 29 Importantly, in McNeely, given the circumstances of an ordinary DUI car stop, the State argued for a per se rule and did not contend there were additional exigent factors to justify a warrantless blood draw. 2017The Supreme Court concluded that "while the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, . . . [w]hether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances." 569 U.S. at ___ , 133 S. Ct. at 1563 . 29 Importantly, in McNeely, given the circumstances of an ordinary DUI car stop, the State argued for a per se rule and did not contend there were additional exigent factors to justify a warrantless blood draw. | 2 | 2014–2017 |
State v. Murry
green
2 sentences2015In State v. Murry, 271 Kan. 223, 227 , 21 P.3d 528 (2001), the Kansas Supreme Court distilled Schmerber into three requirements permitting a warrantless blood test for intoxicants: (1) the delay in obtaining a warrant would threaten the loss of the evidence; (2) “the officer must have probable cause to believe the suspect has been driving under the influence”; and (3) the procedures for extracting the blood sample must be reasonable. 2015In State v. Murry, 271 Kan. 223, 227 , 21 P.3d 528 (2001), the Kansas Supreme Court distilled Schmerber into three requirements permitting a warrantless blood test for intoxicants: (1) the delay in obtaining a warrant would threaten the loss of the evidence; (2) “the officer must have probable cause to believe the suspect has been driving under the influence”; and (3) the procedures for extracting the blood sample must be reasonable. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.