8-1759.
Spot inspections by highway patrol; penalties.
(a) Every driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit such vehicle and its equipment to an inspection of the mechanical condition thereof and such test, with reference thereto, as may be appropriate at any location where signs are displayed requiring such stop and where members of the Kansas highway patrol are conducting such inspections and tests of motor vehicles. Such an inspection and test shall be referred to as a "spot inspection." Spot inspections shall be conducted in a manner that the operator of a motor vehicle, whether private or commercial, shall not be unnecessarily inconvenienced by extended detours, unnecessary delays or any other unreasonable cause.
(b) Violation of this section is a class A misdemeanor.
History:
L. 1974, ch. 42, § 10; L. 1975, ch. 40, § 6; L. 1984, ch. 35, § 2; L. 1991, ch. 42, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Burch, 906 F. Supp. 592 (D. Kan. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The defendants contend that pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1759, 6 spot checks such as the one conducted by Trooper Smith may only be conducted “where signs are displayed requiring such stops and where members of the Kansas Highway patrol are conducting such inspections and tests of motor…”
Davis v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 843 P.2d 260 (Kan. 1992).
“(We note legislative action on: [1] vehicle mechanical condition “spot inspection” by the Kansas Highway Patrol, K.S.A. 8-1759 and [2] vehicle stops by uniformed highway patrol members for safety as well as equipment compliance, K.”
State v. Lees, 432 P.3d 1020 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“8-1759a is the companion statute to K.S.A. 8-1759 which authorizes spot inspections by the Kansas highway patrol requiring drivers to stop and submit to vehicle inspections at any location where signs are displayed giving notice of such inspections.”
United States v. Burch, 160 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Kan. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Burch asserts that this claim of a Fourth Amendment violation supports an argument that he received ineffective counsel; however, this assertion is fallacious because, as noted below, his attorney did raise this issue before the district court which ruled upon it.”
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.