8-284.
Public policy of state.
It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of Kansas:
(a) To provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of the state;
(b) To deny the privilege of operating motor vehicles on such highways to persons who by their conduct, attitude and record have demonstrated their indifference to the safety and welfare of others and their disrespect for the laws of this state, the orders of its courts and the statutorily required acts of its administrative agencies; and
(c) To discourage repetition of criminal acts by individuals against the peace and dignity of this state and its political subdivisions and to impose increased and added deprivation of the privilege to operate motor vehicles upon habitual violators who have been convicted repeatedly of violations of traffic laws.
History:
L. 1972, ch. 32, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases, 1978–1997 · leading case:
State v. Boos, 659 P.2d 224 (Kan. 1983).
State v. Boos, 659 P.2d 224 (Kan. 1983).
· cites it 3× “The proceedings were initiated by the district attorney filing a “complaint” charging the defendant with being an habitual violator under K.S.A. 8-284 et seq. At the trial the State introduced certified records from the division of vehicles of the department of revenue which…”
State v. Graham, 758 P.2d 247 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 5× “8-286, the court said: “The stated purpose of the act (K.S.A. 8-284) is not to benefit a habitual *806 violator; rather it is to provide maximum safety for all people who use the public highways by depriving habitual violators of the privilege of operating motor vehicles on the…”
State v. Underwood, 693 P.2d 1205 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “: The question presented in this case is whether multiple convictions for traffic offenses arising out of one incident are to be considered as separate convictions or only one conviction for purposes of the Kansas Habitual Traffic Violators Act, K.S.A. 8-284 et seq. The critical…”
State v. Heironimus, 941 P.2d 1356 (Kan. 1997).
· cites it 2× “The issue is whether the ha *797 bitual violator statutes (HVS), K.S.A. 8-284 et seq., are unconstitutional because they fail to provide due process.”
State v. Wood, 647 P.2d 1327 (Kan. 1982).
“: A complaint was filed under the Habitual Traffic Violators Act, K.S.A. 8-284 et seq., to have Charles K. Wood declared an habitual traffic offender.”
State v. Campbell, 681 P.2d 679 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
“2d 1327 (1982), which considered the use of municipal and foreign convictions under the Habitual Traffic Violators Act, K.S.A. 8-284 et seq. The court there noted that of the eight different criminal violations dealt with in the statute, only one referred to ordinance violations.”
State v. Oehm, 680 P.2d 309 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
“2d 150 (1979), an action under K.S.A. 8-284 et seq. for declaration of the defendant as a habitual violator of Kansas traffic laws was reviewed.”
State v. Garton, 586 P.2d 1386 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
“The stated purpose of the act (K.S.A. 8-284) is not to benefit a habitual violator; rather it is to provide maximum safety for all people who use the public highways by depriving habitual vio *711 lators of the privilege of operating motor vehicles on the public highways of this…”
State v. Shaffer, 788 P.2d 1341 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
“: This is a direct appeal by Kelly Shaffer from his adjudication as a habitual violator pursuant to K.S.A. 8-284 et seq. Shaffer argues the trial court’s failure to comply with the certification requirements of K.”
State v. Day, 843 P.2d 294 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
“Indeed, the legislature articulated that intent in K.S.A. 8-284 when it declared the public policy of the state: “(a) To provide maximum safety for all persons who .”
Musick v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 825 P.2d 531 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The statutes involved in both Boos and in Whitehurst are K.S.A. 8-284, 8-285, and 8-286. This family of statutes, commonly known as the habitual violator statutes, seeks to discourage repetition of motor vehicle law violations by reducing a repeat offender’s accessibility to the…”
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.