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

K.S.A. § 8-286 (2026)

Habitual violator; revocation of driving privileges; exceptions

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

8-286. Habitual violator; revocation of driving privileges; exceptions. Whenever the files and records of the division shall disclose that the record of convictions of any person is such that the person is an habitual violator, as prescribed by K.S.A. 8-285, and amendments thereto, the division promptly shall revoke the person's driving privileges for a period of three years, except as allowed under K.S.A. 8-235(d)(3) and 8-2110, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1972, ch. 32, § 3; L. 1973, ch. 32, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 353, § 5; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 7; L. 2024, ch. 101, § 1; January 1, 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Foster v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 130 P.3d 560 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foster v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 130 P.3d 560 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 5× “’ The term has been defined by the Kansas Court of Appeals in the context of the habitual violator law, K.S.A. 8-286. In that statute, the Court held that forthwith does not mean ‘immediately;’ rather it means ‘without unnecessary delay and requires reasonable exertion and due…”
State v. Boos, 659 P.2d 224 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 13× “It is argued that K.S.A. 8-286 is a criminal statute and as the evidence was found to be insufficient, the defendant has been acquitted of the charge against him.”
State v. Lewis, 953 P.2d 1016 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 7× “Under K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 8-286, whenever the records of the Division of Vehicles disclose that a licensee meets the requirements of a habitual violator, the licensee’s license is immediately revoked for a period of 3 years.”
State v. Heironimus, 941 P.2d 1356 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 12× “Heironimus, declared a habitual violator (K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 8-286), was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his driving privileges were revoked (K.”
State v. Proffitt, 930 P.2d 1059 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 11× “” K.S.A. 8-286. “It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any motor vehicle in this state while any court order declaring such person to be an habitual violator and prohibiting such operation remains in effect.”
State v. Graham, 758 P.2d 247 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “: The State appeals the trial court’s ruling dismissing a habitual violator petition due to the failure of the Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles, to certify the defendant’s record forthwith under K.S.A. 8-286 and the failure of the Sedgwick County District…”
State v. Garton, 586 P.2d 1386 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “Garton, from having been declared a habitual violator as prescribed by K.S.A. 8-286. Defendant appeals on the premise that the county attorney did not forthwith commence prosecution following the receipt of defendant’s abstract of convictions from the Motor Vehicle Department as…”
State v. Whitehurst, 772 P.2d 1251 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and driving with a suspended license are included in this list of offenses. K.S.A.”
State v. Crum, 19 P.3d 172 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 2× “When the matter came for trial, the State asked the court to consider Inspector Boyle’s testimony given during the motion to suppress, as well as a certified copy of Crum’s driving record that showed his K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 8-286 habitual violator notice.”
State v. Wilkinson, 9 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2000). “His driving privileges were automatically revoked pursuant to K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 8-286 based on his habitual violator status.”
State v. Wood, 647 P.2d 1327 (Kan. 1982). “8-285, any person who within the immediately preceding five years has been convicted three or more times of one or more of the eight traffic-related crimes therein listed, shall be guilty of being “an habitual violator” after a hearing as prescribed in K.S.A. 8-286. Only one of…”
State v. Thomas, 20 P.3d 82 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “To establish the driving while a habitual violator charge, the State was required to prove that Thomas operated “a motor vehicle in this state while [his] driving privileges [were] revoked pursuant to K.S.A. 8-286 and amendments thereto.” (Emphasis added.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
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.