Kansas Statutes Annotated
K.S.A. § 8-1012 (2026)
Preliminary screening test of breath or oral fluid; request by officer, reasonable suspicion; use of results of test; additional tests; approved devices
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
8-1012. Preliminary screening test of breath or oral fluid; request by officer, reasonable suspicion; use of results of test; additional tests; approved devices. (a) A law enforcement officer may request a person who is operating or attempting to operate a vehicle within this state to submit to a preliminary screening test of the person's breath or oral fluid, or both, if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person has been operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or both alcohol and drugs.
(b) If the person submits to the test, the results shall be used for the purpose of assisting law enforcement officers in determining whether an arrest should be made and whether to request the tests authorized by K.S.A. 8-1001, and amendments thereto. A law enforcement officer may arrest a person based in whole or in part upon the results of a preliminary screening test. Such results shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal action concerning the operation of or attempted operation of a vehicle except to aid the court or hearing officer in determining a challenge to the validity of the arrest or the validity of the request to submit to a test pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001, and amendments thereto. Following the preliminary screening test, additional tests may be requested pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001, and amendments thereto.
(c) Any preliminary screening of a person's breath shall be conducted with a device approved pursuant to K.S.A. 65-1,107, and amendments thereto. Any preliminary screening of a person's oral fluid shall be conducted in accordance with rules and regulations, if any, approved pursuant to K.S.A. 75-712h, and amendments thereto.
History: L. 1986, ch. 40, § 1; L. 1993, ch. 259, § 4; L. 2005, ch. 172, § 3; L. 2006, ch. 173, § 2; L. 2006, ch. 211, § 1; L. 2011, ch. 105, § 12; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 14; L. 2019, ch. 13, § 2; April 18.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: City of Wichita v. Molitor, 341 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2015).
City of Wichita v. Molitor, 341 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2015). “Interestingly, an earlier version of K.S.A. 8-1012 permitted a law enforcement officer to request a PBT based upon "reasonable grounds to believe that the person: (a) Has alcohol in the person's body; .”
State v. Robinson, 410 P.3d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “8-1025, refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1012, and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).”
State v. Edgar, 294 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2013). “As to the argument that Edgar did not properly consent to the PBT because the officer told him he had no right to refuse, the district court agreed that the officer did not provide the correct notice under the PBT statute, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 8-1012. But it held there was no error…”
State v. Jones, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005). “The parties stipulate [Jones] was not free to leave at this time, that Officer Windholz was detaining him as part of his investigation, that Officer Windholz read [Jones] the statutory warnings under K.S.A. 8-1012, and it was not until after reading [Jones] the statutory…”
Allen v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 256 P.3d 845 (Kan. 2011). “Additionally, the district court found K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1012 unconstitutional both on its face and as applied in this case.”
State v. Wahweotten, 143 P.3d 58 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “8-1567(a)(3), refusing to submit to a prehminary breath test in violation of K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 8-1012, and failing to provide proof of automobile liability insurance in violation of K.”
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016). “3d 1 (2005) (discussing K.S.A. 8-1012 and holding that extracting deep lung breath for chemical analysis is a search subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment).”
State v. Gray, 18 P.3d 962 (Kan. 2001). “8-1567, and refusing to take a preliminary screening test (PBT) for alcohol concentration, K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 8-1012. Gray moved to suppress the evi *794 dence of his breathalyzer refusal and for dismissal of the charges on factual grounds as well as on the application of…”
State v. Chacon-Bringuez, 18 P.3d 970 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “Defendant additionally filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 8-1012, which allows an arrest based solely on the results of a PBT.”
Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 242 P.3d 1179 (Kan. 2010). “He also attacks the constitutionality of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 8-1012, which authorizes a preliminary breath test based on reasonable suspicion, rather than the higher probable cause standard.”
State v. Edgar, 246 P.3d 1013 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “8-1001 did not apply to a PBT administered pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1012. Because the defendant in that case did not impliedly consent to the PBT, the State was required to show that he "unequivocally, specifically, freely, and intelligently consented" to the PBT.”
Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 148 P.3d 538 (Kan. 2006). “K.S.A. 8-1012 provides in relevant part: “A law enforcement officer may request a person who is operating or attempting to operate a vehicle within this state to submit to a preliminary screening test of the person’s breath to determine tire alcohol concentration of the person’s…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1012(a) — 8 cases
State v. Ryce, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016). “3d 1 (2005) (discussing K.S.A. 8-1012 and holding that extracting deep lung breath for chemical analysis is a search subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment).”
State v. Edgar, 294 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2013). “As to the argument that Edgar did not properly consent to the PBT because the officer told him he had no right to refuse, the district court agreed that the officer did not provide the correct notice under the PBT statute, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 8-1012. But it held there was no error…”
State v. Robinson, 410 P.3d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “8-1025, refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1012, and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).”
State v. Edgar, 246 P.3d 1013 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “8-1001 did not apply to a PBT administered pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1012. Because the defendant in that case did not impliedly consent to the PBT, the State was required to show that he "unequivocally, specifically, freely, and intelligently consented" to the PBT.”
Fischer v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 410 P.3d 933 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
— K.S.A. § 8-1012(b) — 15 cases
City of Wichita v. Molitor, 341 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2015). “Interestingly, an earlier version of K.S.A. 8-1012 permitted a law enforcement officer to request a PBT based upon "reasonable grounds to believe that the person: (a) Has alcohol in the person's body; .”
State v. Robinson, 410 P.3d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “8-1025, refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1012, and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).”
State v. Edgar, 294 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2013). “As to the argument that Edgar did not properly consent to the PBT because the officer told him he had no right to refuse, the district court agreed that the officer did not provide the correct notice under the PBT statute, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 8-1012. But it held there was no error…”
Allen v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 256 P.3d 845 (Kan. 2011). “Additionally, the district court found K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1012 unconstitutional both on its face and as applied in this case.”
Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 242 P.3d 1179 (Kan. 2010). “He also attacks the constitutionality of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 8-1012, which authorizes a preliminary breath test based on reasonable suspicion, rather than the higher probable cause standard.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1012(c) — 6 cases
State v. Edgar, 294 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2013). “As to the argument that Edgar did not properly consent to the PBT because the officer told him he had no right to refuse, the district court agreed that the officer did not provide the correct notice under the PBT statute, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 8-1012. But it held there was no error…”
Allen v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 256 P.3d 845 (Kan. 2011). “Additionally, the district court found K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1012 unconstitutional both on its face and as applied in this case.”
State v. Edgar, 246 P.3d 1013 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “8-1001 did not apply to a PBT administered pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1012. Because the defendant in that case did not impliedly consent to the PBT, the State was required to show that he "unequivocally, specifically, freely, and intelligently consented" to the PBT.”
State v. Robinson, 410 P.3d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “8-1025, refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1012, and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).”
Dumler v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 354 P.3d 519 (Kan. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 8-1012(c)(2) — 1 case
State v. Edgar, 294 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2013). “As to the argument that Edgar did not properly consent to the PBT because the officer told him he had no right to refuse, the district court agreed that the officer did not provide the correct notice under the PBT statute, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 8-1012. But it held there was no error…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1012(d) — 7 cases
Allen v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 256 P.3d 845 (Kan. 2011). “Additionally, the district court found K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1012 unconstitutional both on its face and as applied in this case.”
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
State v. Robinson, 410 P.3d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “8-1025, refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1012, and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).”
State v. Edgar, 294 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2013). “As to the argument that Edgar did not properly consent to the PBT because the officer told him he had no right to refuse, the district court agreed that the officer did not provide the correct notice under the PBT statute, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 8-1012. But it held there was no error…”
State v. Herman, 324 P.3d 1134 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
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.