8-1001.
Tests for alcohol or drugs; request by officer, grounds; administration of tests, when; procedures; immunity from liability; duty to provide driver notice; refusal to comply or test result exceeding limit, license suspension; admissibility and availability of test result; remedial nature of law.
(a) Any person who operates or attempts to operate a vehicle within this state may be requested, subject to the provisions of this article, to submit to one or more tests of the person's blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs. The testing shall include all quantitative and qualitative tests for alcohol and drugs. The test must be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer shall determine which type of test is to be conducted or requested.
(b) (1) One or more tests may be required of a person when, at the time of the request, a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a violation of K.S.A. 8-1567(a), and amendments thereto, or to believe the person was driving a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in K.S.A. 8-2,128, and amendments thereto, while having alcohol or other drugs in such person's system, or to believe the person is under the age of 21 years and was operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while having alcohol or other drugs in such person's system; and one of the following conditions exists: (A) The person has been arrested or otherwise taken into custody for any violation of any state statute, county resolution or city ordinance; or (B) the person has been involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in property damage, personal injury or death.
(2) The law enforcement officer directing administration of the test or tests may act on personal knowledge or on the basis of the collective information available to law enforcement officers involved in the investigation or arrest.
(c) When requesting a test or tests of breath or other bodily substance other than blood or urine, under this section, the person shall be given oral and written notice that:
(1) There is no right to consult with an attorney regarding whether to submit to testing, but, after the completion of the testing, the person may request and has the right to consult with an attorney and may secure additional testing;
(2) if the person refuses to submit to and complete the test or tests, the person's driving privileges will be suspended for a period of one year;
(3) if the person fails a test, the person's driving privileges will be suspended for a period of either 30 days or one year;
(4) refusal to submit to testing may be used against the person at any trial or hearing on a charge arising out of the operation or attempted operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both; and
(5) the results of the testing may be used against the person at any trial or hearing on a charge arising out of the operation or attempted operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both.
(d) When requesting a test or tests of blood or urine, under this section, the person shall be given oral and written notice that:
(1) If the person refuses to submit to and complete the test or tests, the person's driving privileges will be suspended for a period of one year;
(2) if the person fails a test, the person's driving privileges will be suspended for a period of either 30 days or one year;
(3) the results of the testing may be used against the person at any trial or hearing on a charge arising out of the operation or attempted operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both; and
(4) after the completion of the testing, the person may request and has the right to consult with an attorney and may secure additional testing.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the right of a law enforcement officer to conduct any search of a person's breath or other bodily substance, other than blood or urine, incident to a lawful arrest pursuant to the constitution of the United States, with or without providing the person the advisories authorized in subsection (c), nor limit the admissibility at any trial or hearing of alcohol or drug concentration testing results obtained pursuant to such a search.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the right of a law enforcement officer to conduct or obtain a blood or urine test of a person pursuant to a warrant under K.S.A. 22-2502, and amendments thereto, the constitution of the United States or a judicially recognized exception to the search warrant requirement, with or without providing the person the advisories authorized in subsection (d), nor limit the admissibility at any trial or hearing of alcohol or drug concentration testing results obtained pursuant to such a search.
(g) A law enforcement officer may direct a medical professional, as described in subsection (h), to draw one or more samples of blood from a person to determine the blood's alcohol or drug concentration:
(1) If the person has given consent, with or without the advisories in subsection (d), and meets the requirements of subsection (b);
(2) if law enforcement has obtained a search warrant authorizing the collection of blood from the person; or
(3) if the person refuses or is unable to consent to submit to and complete a test, and another judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies.
(h) If a law enforcement officer is authorized to collect one or more tests of blood under this section, the withdrawal of blood at the direction of the officer may be performed only by: (1) A person licensed to practice medicine and surgery, licensed as a physician assistant, or a person acting under the direction of any such licensed person; (2) a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse; (3) any qualified medical technician, including, but not limited to, an advanced emergency medical technician or a paramedic, as those terms are defined in K.S.A. 65-6112, and amendments thereto, authorized by medical protocol; or (4) a phlebotomist.
(i) When so directed by a law enforcement officer through a written statement, the medical professional shall withdraw the sample of blood as soon as practical and shall deliver the sample to the law enforcement officer or another law enforcement officer as directed by the requesting law enforcement officer as soon as practical, provided the collection of the sample does not jeopardize the person's life, cause serious injury to the person or seriously impede the person's medical assessment, care or treatment. The medical professional authorized herein to withdraw the blood and the medical care facility where the blood is drawn may act on good faith that the requirements have been met for directing the withdrawing of blood once presented with the written statement provided for under this subsection. The medical professional shall not require the person that is the subject of the test or tests to provide any additional consent or sign any waiver form. In such a case, the person authorized to withdraw blood and the medical care facility shall not be liable in any action alleging lack of consent or lack of informed consent.
Such sample or samples shall be an independent sample and not be a portion of a sample collected for medical purposes. The person collecting the blood sample shall complete the collection portion of a document, if provided by law enforcement.
(j) If a person must be restrained to collect the sample pursuant to this section, law enforcement shall be responsible for applying any such restraint utilizing acceptable law enforcement restraint practices. The restraint shall be effective in controlling the person in a manner not to jeopardize the person's safety or that of the medical professional or attending medical or health care staff during the drawing of the sample and without interfering with medical treatment.
(k) If a law enforcement officer is authorized to collect one or more tests of urine, the collection of the urine sample shall be supervised by: (1) A person licensed to practice medicine and surgery, licensed as a physician assistant, or a person acting under the direction of any such licensed person; (2) a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse; or (3) a law enforcement officer of the same sex as the person being tested. The collection of the urine sample shall be conducted out of the view of any person other than the persons supervising the collection of the sample and the person being tested, unless the right to privacy is waived by the person being tested. When possible, the supervising person shall be a law enforcement officer. The results of qualitative testing for drug presence shall be admissible in evidence and questions of accuracy or reliability shall go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence. If the person is medically unable to provide a urine sample in such manner due to the injuries or treatment of the injuries, the same authorization and procedure as used for the collection of blood in subsections (g) and (i) shall apply to the collection of a urine sample.
(l) No law enforcement officer who is acting in accordance with this section shall be liable in any civil or criminal proceeding involving the action.
(m) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the person has been driving a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in K.S.A. 8-2,128, and amendments thereto, while having alcohol or other drugs in such person's system, the person shall also be provided the oral and written notice pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2,145, and amendments thereto. Any failure to give the notices required by K.S.A. 8-2,145, and amendments thereto, shall not invalidate any action taken as a result of the requirements of this section. If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the person has been operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while having alcohol or other drugs in such person's system and such person was under 21 years of age, the person also shall be given the notices required by K.S.A. 8-1567a, and amendments thereto. Any failure to give the notices required by K.S.A. 8-1567a, and amendments thereto, shall not invalidate any action taken as a result of the requirements of this section.
(n) The person's refusal shall be admissible in evidence against the person at any trial on a charge arising out of the alleged operation or attempted operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both.
(o) If a law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe the person had been driving a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in K.S.A. 8-2,128, and amendments thereto, and the test results show a blood or breath alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater, the person shall be disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle, pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2,142, and amendments thereto. If a law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe the person had been driving any motor vehicle, the person fails a test, as defined in K.S.A. 8-1013(h), and amendments thereto, or the person refuses a test, the person's driving privileges shall be subject to suspension, or suspension and restriction, pursuant to this section, in addition to being disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2,142, and amendments thereto.
(p) Failure of a person to provide an adequate breath sample or samples as directed shall constitute a refusal unless the person shows that the failure was due to physical inability caused by a medical condition unrelated to any ingested alcohol or drugs.
(q) It shall not be a defense that the person did not understand the written or oral notice authorized by this section.
(r) No test results shall be suppressed because of irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused in the consent or notice authorized pursuant to this act. Failure to provide any or all of the notices set forth in subsection (c) or (d) shall not be an issue or defense in any action other than an administrative action regarding the subject's driving privileges.
(s) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the admissibility at any trial of alcohol or drug concentration testing results obtained pursuant to a search warrant or other judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
(t) Upon the request of any person submitting to testing under this section, a report of the results of the testing shall be made available to such person when available.
(u) This act is remedial law and shall be liberally construed to promote public health, safety and welfare.
History:
L. 1955, ch. 61, § 1; L. 1967, ch. 60, § 1; L. 1973, ch. 41, § 1; L. 1977, ch. 38, § 4; L. 1978, ch. 36, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 144, § 3; L. 1985, ch. 48, § 3; L. 1985, ch. 50, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 40, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 47, § 13; L. 1990, ch. 47, § 1; L. 1991, ch. 36, § 18; L. 1993, ch. 259, § 1; L. 1993, ch. 275, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 353, § 9; L. 1999, ch. 169, § 1; L. 2001, ch. 200, § 12; L. 2005, ch. 172, § 2; L. 2006, ch. 173, § 1; L. 2007, ch. 181, § 3; L. 2008, ch. 170, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 119, § 13; L. 2011, ch. 105, § 9; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 12; L. 2013, ch. 122, § 2; L. 2014, ch. 131, § 1; L. 2018, ch. 106, § 7; L. 2019, ch. 13, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
277
cases (
31 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016).
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016).
· cites it 27× “This appeal raises a threshold question of whether the general rule regarding the withdrawal of consent applies when a driver impliedly consents to testing under 8-1001(a) in exchange for driving privileges but then refuses to expressly consent to testing when requested by a law…”
State v. Declerck, 317 P.3d 794 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 31× “The State subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal concerning the suppression of evidence, arguing (1) K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001 clearly authorized the blood draw, (2) the consent exception to the warrant requirement was met because Declerck had impliedly consented to the…”
State v. Jones, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 21× “The parties stipulate that Officer Windholz complied with Kansas Department of Health and Environment protocol, the Implied Consent Law as prescribed in K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., and diat the blood sample was properly drawn and submitted to die KBI Lab for testing.”
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
· cites it 12× “Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
State v. Stegman, 203 P.3d 52 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 40× “The 2008 amendment to K.S.A. 8-1001(c) neither changed the definition of a criminal act nor prescribed a new punishment.”
State v. Adee, 740 P.2d 611 (Kan. 1987).
· cites it 18× “K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 8-1001 provides: “(a) Any person who operates or attempts to operate a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of this act, to submit to one or more tests of the person’s blood, breath, urine or other bodily…”
Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 148 P.3d 538 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 15× “That on October 7, 2004, the Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles, Driver Control Division, issued an order based upon K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., suspending and/or restricting plaintiff s driving privileges.”
Martin v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 176 P.3d 938 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 10× “2,128, and amendments thereto, while having alcohol or other drugs in such person's system; (B) the person was in custody or arrested for an alcohol or drug related offense or was involved in a vehicle accident or collision resulting in property damage, personal injury or death;…”
Kempke v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 133 P.3d 104 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 19× “: The Kansas Department of Revenue sought to suspend the driver s license of Bryan Eugene Kempke under the Kansas implied consent law, K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq. The Ellsworth *772 County District Court held that the statutory scheme of the Kansas implied consent law was…”
State v. Meitler, 347 P.3d 670 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 47× “¶¶ 5-7 (finding K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001[b][2] unconstitutional).”
State v. Schmidt, 385 P.3d 936 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “In accordance with the Kansas Implied Consent Law, K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1001, the arresting officer requested that Schmidt submit to a blood test and informed him, as required by the implied consent advisories, that failure to submit to the test constituted a separate crime.”
State v. Conn, 99 P.3d 1108 (Kan. 2004).
· cites it 12× “Conn filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude the urinalysis results on the ground that the trooper was not authorized to request the test pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001. The trial court ordered that the State refrain from mentioning the urinalysis until it introduced evidence…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(1) — 4 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(a) — 51 cases
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016).
“This appeal raises a threshold question of whether the general rule regarding the withdrawal of consent applies when a driver impliedly consents to testing under 8-1001(a) in exchange for driving privileges but then refuses to expressly consent to testing when requested by a law…”
State v. Declerck, 317 P.3d 794 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The State subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal concerning the suppression of evidence, arguing (1) K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001 clearly authorized the blood draw, (2) the consent exception to the warrant requirement was met because Declerck had impliedly consented to the…”
Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 148 P.3d 538 (Kan. 2006).
“That on October 7, 2004, the Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles, Driver Control Division, issued an order based upon K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., suspending and/or restricting plaintiff s driving privileges.”
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(b) — 48 cases
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016).
“This appeal raises a threshold question of whether the general rule regarding the withdrawal of consent applies when a driver impliedly consents to testing under 8-1001(a) in exchange for driving privileges but then refuses to expressly consent to testing when requested by a law…”
State v. Declerck, 317 P.3d 794 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The State subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal concerning the suppression of evidence, arguing (1) K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001 clearly authorized the blood draw, (2) the consent exception to the warrant requirement was met because Declerck had impliedly consented to the…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(b)(1) — 15 cases
State v. Declerck, 317 P.3d 794 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The State subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal concerning the suppression of evidence, arguing (1) K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001 clearly authorized the blood draw, (2) the consent exception to the warrant requirement was met because Declerck had impliedly consented to the…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(b)(1)(A) — 2 cases
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(b)(2) — 11 cases
State v. Meitler, 347 P.3d 670 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
“¶¶ 5-7 (finding K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001[b][2] unconstitutional).”
State v. Declerck, 317 P.3d 794 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The State subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal concerning the suppression of evidence, arguing (1) K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001 clearly authorized the blood draw, (2) the consent exception to the warrant requirement was met because Declerck had impliedly consented to the…”
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016).
“This appeal raises a threshold question of whether the general rule regarding the withdrawal of consent applies when a driver impliedly consents to testing under 8-1001(a) in exchange for driving privileges but then refuses to expressly consent to testing when requested by a law…”
Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 148 P.3d 538 (Kan. 2006).
“That on October 7, 2004, the Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles, Driver Control Division, issued an order based upon K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., suspending and/or restricting plaintiff s driving privileges.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(b)(l) — 8 cases
Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 148 P.3d 538 (Kan. 2006).
“That on October 7, 2004, the Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles, Driver Control Division, issued an order based upon K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., suspending and/or restricting plaintiff s driving privileges.”
Kempke v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 133 P.3d 104 (Kan. 2006).
“: The Kansas Department of Revenue sought to suspend the driver s license of Bryan Eugene Kempke under the Kansas implied consent law, K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq. The Ellsworth *772 County District Court held that the statutory scheme of the Kansas implied consent law was…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(b)(l)(A) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(c) — 28 cases
State v. Stegman, 203 P.3d 52 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“The 2008 amendment to K.S.A. 8-1001(c) neither changed the definition of a criminal act nor prescribed a new punishment.”
Kempke v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 133 P.3d 104 (Kan. 2006).
“: The Kansas Department of Revenue sought to suspend the driver s license of Bryan Eugene Kempke under the Kansas implied consent law, K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq. The Ellsworth *772 County District Court held that the statutory scheme of the Kansas implied consent law was…”
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(c)(1) — 5 cases
State v. Stegman, 203 P.3d 52 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“The 2008 amendment to K.S.A. 8-1001(c) neither changed the definition of a criminal act nor prescribed a new punishment.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(c)(2) — 5 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(c)(3) — 3 cases
State v. Stegman, 203 P.3d 52 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“The 2008 amendment to K.S.A. 8-1001(c) neither changed the definition of a criminal act nor prescribed a new punishment.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(c)(4) — 3 cases
State v. Stegman, 203 P.3d 52 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“The 2008 amendment to K.S.A. 8-1001(c) neither changed the definition of a criminal act nor prescribed a new punishment.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(d) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(d)(3) — 4 cases
State v. Declerck, 317 P.3d 794 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The State subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal concerning the suppression of evidence, arguing (1) K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001 clearly authorized the blood draw, (2) the consent exception to the warrant requirement was met because Declerck had impliedly consented to the…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(e) — 3 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(e)(3) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f) — 37 cases
State v. Adee, 740 P.2d 611 (Kan. 1987).
“K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 8-1001 provides: “(a) Any person who operates or attempts to operate a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of this act, to submit to one or more tests of the person’s blood, breath, urine or other bodily…”
State v. Conn, 99 P.3d 1108 (Kan. 2004).
“Conn filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude the urinalysis results on the ground that the trooper was not authorized to request the test pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001. The trial court ordered that the State refrain from mentioning the urinalysis until it introduced evidence…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(1) — 16 cases
State v. Jones, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005).
“The parties stipulate that Officer Windholz complied with Kansas Department of Health and Environment protocol, the Implied Consent Law as prescribed in K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., and diat the blood sample was properly drawn and submitted to die KBI Lab for testing.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(1)(A) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(1)(D) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(1)(E) — 7 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(1)(F) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(1)(G) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(1)(I) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(2) — 8 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(3) — 3 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(4) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(8) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Jones, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005).
“The parties stipulate that Officer Windholz complied with Kansas Department of Health and Environment protocol, the Implied Consent Law as prescribed in K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., and diat the blood sample was properly drawn and submitted to die KBI Lab for testing.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(C) — 3 cases
State v. Jones, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005).
“The parties stipulate that Officer Windholz complied with Kansas Department of Health and Environment protocol, the Implied Consent Law as prescribed in K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., and diat the blood sample was properly drawn and submitted to die KBI Lab for testing.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(D) — 5 cases
State v. Jones, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005).
“The parties stipulate that Officer Windholz complied with Kansas Department of Health and Environment protocol, the Implied Consent Law as prescribed in K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., and diat the blood sample was properly drawn and submitted to die KBI Lab for testing.”
Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 148 P.3d 538 (Kan. 2006).
“That on October 7, 2004, the Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles, Driver Control Division, issued an order based upon K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., suspending and/or restricting plaintiff s driving privileges.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(E) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(I) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(l) — 26 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(l)(B) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(l)(E) — 9 cases
State v. Adee, 740 P.2d 611 (Kan. 1987).
“K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 8-1001 provides: “(a) Any person who operates or attempts to operate a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of this act, to submit to one or more tests of the person’s blood, breath, urine or other bodily…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(l)(F) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(l)(I) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(f)(l)(J) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(g) — 5 cases
State v. Adee, 740 P.2d 611 (Kan. 1987).
“K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 8-1001 provides: “(a) Any person who operates or attempts to operate a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of this act, to submit to one or more tests of the person’s blood, breath, urine or other bodily…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(h) — 6 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(h)(l) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(i) — 13 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k) — 38 cases
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016).
“This appeal raises a threshold question of whether the general rule regarding the withdrawal of consent applies when a driver impliedly consents to testing under 8-1001(a) in exchange for driving privileges but then refuses to expressly consent to testing when requested by a law…”
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(1) — 9 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(10) — 5 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(2) — 9 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(3) — 3 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(4) — 12 cases
State v. Schmidt, 385 P.3d 936 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
“In accordance with the Kansas Implied Consent Law, K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1001, the arresting officer requested that Schmidt submit to a blood test and informed him, as required by the implied consent advisories, that failure to submit to the test constituted a separate crime.”
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016).
“This appeal raises a threshold question of whether the general rule regarding the withdrawal of consent applies when a driver impliedly consents to testing under 8-1001(a) in exchange for driving privileges but then refuses to expressly consent to testing when requested by a law…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(4)(A) — 2 cases
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(5) — 8 cases
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(6) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(6)(A) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(7) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(8) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(k)(9) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(lc) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(lc)(9) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(m) — 4 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(n) — 9 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(o) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(p) — 6 cases
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016).
“This appeal raises a threshold question of whether the general rule regarding the withdrawal of consent applies when a driver impliedly consents to testing under 8-1001(a) in exchange for driving privileges but then refuses to expressly consent to testing when requested by a law…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(q) — 10 cases
Martin v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 176 P.3d 938 (Kan. 2008).
“2,128, and amendments thereto, while having alcohol or other drugs in such person's system; (B) the person was in custody or arrested for an alcohol or drug related offense or was involved in a vehicle accident or collision resulting in property damage, personal injury or death;…”
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(r) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(s) — 6 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(t) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(u) — 5 cases
— K.S.A. § 8-1001(v) — 15 cases
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1001(a) any person operating a vehicle in this State is deemed to have given consent to submit to testing to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”
State v. Stegman, 203 P.3d 52 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“The 2008 amendment to K.S.A. 8-1001(c) neither changed the definition of a criminal act nor prescribed a new punishment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.