K.S.A. » Chapter 08
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 8-1013 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

8-1013. Definitions. As used in K.S.A. 8-1001 through 8-1018, and amendments thereto:

(a) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or per 210 liters of breath.

(b) (1) "Alcohol or drug-related conviction" means any of the following: (A) Conviction of vehicular battery or aggravated vehicular homicide, prior to their repeal, if the crime is committed while committing a violation of K.S.A. 8-1567, and amendments thereto, or the ordinance of a city or resolution of a county in this state which prohibits any acts prohibited by that statute, or conviction of a violation of K.S.A. 8-2,144 or 8-1567, and amendments thereto, conviction of a violation of aggravated battery as described in K.S.A. 21-5413(b)(3) or (b)(4), and amendments thereto, or conviction of a violation of involuntary manslaughter as described in K.S.A. 21-5405(a)(3) or (a)(5), and amendments thereto; (B) conviction of a violation of a law of another state which would constitute a crime described in subsection (b)(1)(A) if committed in this state; (C) conviction of a violation of an ordinance of a city in this state or a resolution of a county in this state which would constitute a crime described in subsection (b)(1)(A), whether or not such conviction is in a court of record; or (D) conviction of an act which was committed on a military reservation and which would constitute a violation of K.S.A. 8-2,144 or 8-1567, and amendments thereto, or would constitute a crime described in subsection (b)(1)(A) if committed off a military reservation in this state.

(2) For the purpose of determining whether an occurrence is a first, second or subsequent occurrence: (A) "Alcohol or drug-related conviction" also includes entering into a diversion agreement in lieu of further criminal proceedings on a complaint alleging commission of a crime described in subsection (b)(1), including a diversion agreement entered into prior to the effective date of this act; and (B) it is irrelevant whether an offense occurred before or after conviction or diversion for a previous offense.

(c) "Division" means the division of vehicles of the department of revenue.

(d) "Ignition interlock device" means a device which uses a breath analysis mechanism to prevent a person from operating a motor vehicle if such person has consumed an alcoholic beverage.

(e) "Occurrence" means a test refusal, test failure or alcohol or drug-related conviction, or any combination thereof arising from one arrest, including an arrest which occurred prior to the effective date of this act.

(f) "Other competent evidence" includes: (1) Alcohol concentration tests obtained from samples taken three hours or more after the operation or attempted operation of a vehicle; and (2) readings obtained from a partial alcohol concentration test on a breath testing machine.

(g) "Samples" includes breath supplied directly for testing, which breath is not preserved.

(h) "Test failure" or "fails a test" refers to a person's having results of a test administered pursuant to this act, other than a preliminary screening test, which show an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or greater in the person's blood or breath, and includes failure of any such test on a military reservation.

(i) "Test refusal" or "refuses a test" refers to a person's failure to submit to or complete any test of the person's blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance, other than a preliminary screening test, in accordance with this act, and includes refusal of any such test on a military reservation.

(j) "Law enforcement officer" has the meaning provided by K.S.A. 21-5111, and amendments thereto, and includes any person authorized by law to make an arrest on a military reservation for an act which would constitute a violation of K.S.A. 8-1567, and amendments thereto, if committed off a military reservation in this state.

History: L. 1988, ch. 47, § 6; L. 1993, ch. 259, § 5; L. 2005, ch. 86, § 1; L. 2011, ch. 105, § 13; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 15; L. 2013, ch. 122, § 3; L. 2018, ch. 7, § 5; L. 2018, ch. 106, § 9; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 7× “urine hereafter requested by a law enforcement officer, the person may be charged with a separate crime of refusing to submit to a test to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs, which carries criminal penalties that are greater than or equal to the criminal penalties for…”
State v. Stevens, 172 P.3d 570 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 4× “8-1567 and K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 8-1013. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court exercises unlimited review.”
State v. Stevens, 138 P.3d 1262 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “8-1567(a)(1), which states that an individual shall not operate or attempt to operate any vehicle in Kansas while “[t]he alcohol concentration in the person s blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in paragraph (1) of…”
State v. May, 269 P.3d 1260 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 3× “8-1567(a)(3), based on the driver being under the influence to a degree that rendered the driver incapable of safely operating a vehicle, the State is permitted to use all “other competent evidence,” as defined in K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1013(f). That definition of other competent…”
Martin v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 176 P.3d 938 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 2× “8-1002[a][2] ). The Department's Division of Vehicles reviews the certification to ensure that all requirements were met; if so, it will suspend the driver's license.”
State v. Wahweotten, 143 P.3d 58 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “2d 1169 (1992) (determining that a deficient sample breath test result is admissible as other competent evidence under K.S.A. 8-1013[f][2] [1991 Furse] and K.S.”
State v. Guzman/Heckler, 455 P.3d 485 (Or. 2019). “Cite as 366 Or 18 (2019) 41 With that in mind, we turn to Kan Stat Ann § 8-1567:10 “(a) Driving under the influence is operating or attempt- ing to operate any vehicle within this state while: “(1) The alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath as shown by any…”
State v. Brosseit, 423 P.3d 1036 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “[t]he alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in paragraph [1] of subsection [f] of K.S.A. 8-1013, and amendments thereto, is .”
State v. Jones, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005). “8-1005], Pursuant to K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 8-1013(h) and (i), the definitions of ‘test failure’ and ‘test refusal’ clearly do not include the PBT for purposes of evidentiary alcohol testing under the implied consent statutes.”
Call v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 831 P.2d 970 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 8-1013(h) defines test failure as “a person’s having results of a test administered pursuant to this act, other than a preliminary screening test, which show an alcohol concentration of .”
State v. Pendleton, 849 P.2d 143 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “8-1567 provided in relevant part: “(a) No person shall operate or attempt to operate any vehicle within this state while: *184 (1) The alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in…”
Meats v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 980 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 2× “8-1001(k)(4)(A) and K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1013(i). The thrust of Meats' argument is that the DC-70 does not sufficiently differentiate the refusal or failure to complete a postarrest evidentiary test, which can lead to additional sanctions, and a refusal to submit to a prearrest…”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(b) — 1 case
Musick v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 825 P.2d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(b)(1) — 1 case
State v. Ryce (Kan. 2017).
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(b)(2)(A) — 1 case
Musick v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 825 P.2d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(c) — 1 case
Martin v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 176 P.3d 938 (Kan. 2008). “8-1002[a][2] ). The Department's Division of Vehicles reviews the certification to ensure that all requirements were met; if so, it will suspend the driver's license.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(e) — 1 case
Musick v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 825 P.2d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(f) — 7 cases
State v. Stevens, 172 P.3d 570 (Kan. 2007). “8-1567 and K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 8-1013. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court exercises unlimited review.”
State v. May, 269 P.3d 1260 (Kan. 2012). “8-1567(a)(3), based on the driver being under the influence to a degree that rendered the driver incapable of safely operating a vehicle, the State is permitted to use all “other competent evidence,” as defined in K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1013(f). That definition of other competent…”
State v. Maze, 825 P.2d 1169 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Stevens, 138 P.3d 1262 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “8-1567(a)(1), which states that an individual shall not operate or attempt to operate any vehicle in Kansas while “[t]he alcohol concentration in the person s blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in paragraph (1) of…”
State v. Herrman, 99 P.3d 632 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(f)(1) — 5 cases
State v. Guzman/Heckler, 455 P.3d 485 (Or. 2019). “Cite as 366 Or 18 (2019) 41 With that in mind, we turn to Kan Stat Ann § 8-1567:10 “(a) Driving under the influence is operating or attempt- ing to operate any vehicle within this state while: “(1) The alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath as shown by any…”
State v. Zeiner (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Lewis (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Price, 444 P.3d 1017 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Cupp (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(f)(2) — 7 cases
State v. Stevens, 138 P.3d 1262 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “8-1567(a)(1), which states that an individual shall not operate or attempt to operate any vehicle in Kansas while “[t]he alcohol concentration in the person s blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in paragraph (1) of…”
State v. May, 269 P.3d 1260 (Kan. 2012). “8-1567(a)(3), based on the driver being under the influence to a degree that rendered the driver incapable of safely operating a vehicle, the State is permitted to use all “other competent evidence,” as defined in K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1013(f). That definition of other competent…”
State v. Stevens, 172 P.3d 570 (Kan. 2007). “8-1567 and K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 8-1013. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court exercises unlimited review.”
State v. Chastain, 960 P.2d 756 (Kan. 1998).
State v. Wahweotten, 143 P.3d 58 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “2d 1169 (1992) (determining that a deficient sample breath test result is admissible as other competent evidence under K.S.A. 8-1013[f][2] [1991 Furse] and K.S.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(f)(l) — 1 case
State v. Pendleton, 849 P.2d 143 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “8-1567 provided in relevant part: “(a) No person shall operate or attempt to operate any vehicle within this state while: *184 (1) The alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in…”
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(h) — 6 cases
State v. Jones, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005). “8-1005], Pursuant to K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 8-1013(h) and (i), the definitions of ‘test failure’ and ‘test refusal’ clearly do not include the PBT for purposes of evidentiary alcohol testing under the implied consent statutes.”
State v. Gray, 18 P.3d 962 (Kan. 2001).
Podrebarac v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 807 P.2d 1327 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
Katz v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 256 P.3d 876 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
Call v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 831 P.2d 970 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 8-1013(h) defines test failure as “a person’s having results of a test administered pursuant to this act, other than a preliminary screening test, which show an alcohol concentration of .”
— K.S.A. § 8-1013(i) — 8 cases
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019). “urine hereafter requested by a law enforcement officer, the person may be charged with a separate crime of refusing to submit to a test to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs, which carries criminal penalties that are greater than or equal to the criminal penalties for…”
Meats v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 980 (Kan. 2019). “8-1001(k)(4)(A) and K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1013(i). The thrust of Meats' argument is that the DC-70 does not sufficiently differentiate the refusal or failure to complete a postarrest evidentiary test, which can lead to additional sanctions, and a refusal to submit to a prearrest…”
Call v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 831 P.2d 970 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 8-1013(h) defines test failure as “a person’s having results of a test administered pursuant to this act, other than a preliminary screening test, which show an alcohol concentration of .”
State v. Wahweotten, 143 P.3d 58 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “2d 1169 (1992) (determining that a deficient sample breath test result is admissible as other competent evidence under K.S.A. 8-1013[f][2] [1991 Furse] and K.S.”
McRoberts v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 843 P.2d 280 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
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.