impair driving ability -- Test procedures -- Who may administer -- Personal
testing.
The following provisions shall apply to any person who operates or is in physical control
of a motor vehicle or a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth:
(1) He or she has given his or her consent to one (1) or more tests of his or her blood,
breath, and urine, or combination thereof, for the purpose of determining alcohol
concentration or presence of a substance which may impair one's driving ability, if
an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of KRS 189A.010(1) or
189.520(1) has occurred;
(2) Any person who is dead, unconscious, or otherwise in a condition rendering him or
her incapable of refusal is deemed not to have withdrawn the consent provided in
subsection (1) of this section, and the test may be given;
(3) (a) The breath, blood, and urine tests administered pursuant to this section shall
be administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable grounds
to believe the person has committed a violation of KRS 189A.010(1) or
189.520(1).
(b) Tests of the person's breath, blood, or urine, to be valid pursuant to this
section, shall have been performed according to the administrative regulations
promulgated by the secretary of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, and
shall have been performed, as to breath tests, only after a peace officer has
had the person under personal observation at the location of the test for a
minimum of twenty (20) minutes.
(c) All breath tests shall be administered by a peace officer holding a certificate
as an operator of a breath analysis instrument, issued by the secretary of the
Justice and Public Safety Cabinet or his or her designee;
(4) A breath test shall consist of a test which is performed in accordance with the
standard operating procedures adopted by the Department of Criminal Justice
Training for the use of the instrument. The secretary of the Justice and Public
Safety Cabinet shall keep available for public inspection and provide, upon request
and without charge, copies of the standard operating procedures adopted by the
Department of Criminal Justice Training for all models of breath testing devices in
use by the Commonwealth of Kentucky;
(5) When the preliminary breath test, breath test, or other evidence gives the peace
officer reasonable grounds to believe there is impairment by a substance which is
not subject to testing by a breath test, then blood or urine tests, or both, may be
required in addition to a breath test, or in lieu of a breath test;
(6) Only a physician, registered nurse, phlebotomist, medical technician, or medical
technologist not otherwise prohibited by law can withdraw any blood of any person
submitting to a test under this section; and
(7) After the person has submitted to all alcohol concentration tests and substance tests
requested by the officer, the person tested shall be permitted to have a person listed
in subsection (6) of this section of his or her own choosing administer a test or tests
in addition to any tests administered at the direction of the peace officer. Tests
conducted under this section shall be conducted within a reasonable length of time.
Provided, however, the nonavailability of the person chosen to administer a test or
tests in addition to those administered at the direction of the peace officer within a
reasonable time shall not be grounds for rendering inadmissible as evidence the
results of the test or tests administered at the direction of the peace officer.
Effective: March 27, 2023
History: Amended 2023 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 1, effective March 27, 2023. --
Amended 2022 Ky. Acts ch. 83, sec. 2, effective April 6, 2022. -- Amended 2007
Ky. Acts ch. 85, sec. 214, effective June 26, 2007. -- Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch.
467, sec. 8, effective October 1, 2000. -- Created 1991 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch.
15, sec. 6, effective July 1, 1991.
Legislative Research Commission Note (3/27/2023). 2023 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 4,
provides that the Act, which amended this statute and KRS 189A.110 and created
KRS 507.060, may be cited as Lily's Law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case:
Helton v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 555 (Ky. 2010).
Helton v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 555 (Ky. 2010).
· cites it 39× “105(2)(b), which requires a warrant to test blood in a fatality accident, and which she argues controls over the "implied consent" statute, KRS 189A.103. She also claims that even if the statutes are not in conflict, then the consent statute and *557 the practice of taking a…”
Love v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 816 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 6× “2d 329 (1992) for the proposition that this is sufficient to trigger the requirements of KRS 189A.103 and 500 KAR 8:030(2). However, in Cook , hospital personnel admittedly drew the defendant's blood sample at the direction of a police officer.”
Commonwealth v. Long, 118 S.W.3d 178 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “After our review of the statute, we conclude that the district court erred in applying the provisions of KRS 189A.103 to Long. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal.”
Beach v. Commonwealth, 927 S.W.2d 826 (Ky. 1996).
· cites it 12× “The provisions of KRS 189A.103 are based on the public policy determined by the legislature that an individual driving on the highways of Kentucky has given implied consent to the performance of blood, breath and/or urine tests in the event that the individual is suspected of…”
Cook v. Commonwealth, 129 S.W.3d 351 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 6× “" [5] This Court observed in Hernandez-Gonzalez that "[t]he 2000 amendment of [KRS 189A.103(1)] to read `has given his consent' makes it unmistakable that a suspected drunk driver must submit to a test to determine blood alcohol concentration.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 560 S.W.3d 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “KRS 189A.103 provides in relevant part: The following provisions shall apply to any person who operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle .”
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 483 S.W.3d 353 (Ky. 2015).
· cites it 10× “below; it, the Court of Appeals ruled that nothing in Kentucky’s Implied Consent law prevents an officer, who is- investigating an alcohol-related DUI, from using a blood test as the initial BAC testing method.”
Commonwealth v. Wirth, 936 S.W.2d 78 (Ky. 1996).
· cites it 5× “By virtue of KRS 189A.103, one who operates a motor vehicle consents to a test of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration.”
Combs v. Commonwealth, 965 S.W.2d 161 (Ky. 1998).
· cites it 6× “The issue is whether police may use a search warrant in order to take a suspected drunk driver’s blood after the driver has refused to submit to a blood alcohol test pursuant to the Implied Consent Statute, KRS 189A.103 and 189A.105(2)(b), in a case not involving death or…”
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 122 S.W.3d 524 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 6× “The court in Wirth went on to say that: *527 The only additional requirements are found in KRS 189A.103 (3)(a), KRS 189A.103(4), and 500 KAR 8:020(2), which may be satisfied by means of business or public records showing compliance with the additional requirements.”
Commonwealth v. Bedway, 466 S.W.3d 468 (Ky. 2015).
· cites it 5× “While we hold the Commonwealth did violate Bedway’s statutory right, because of Kentucky’s implied consent law under KRS 189A.103 and the potential penalties attendant thereto, the remedy in this case is not suppression.”
G.G. v. Commonwealth, 496 S.W.3d 492 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “KRS 189A.103 provides for consent to test for alcohol or other substances and states in relevant part as follows: The following provisions shall apply to any person who operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle or a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle in this…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.103(1) — 18 cases
Love v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 816 (Ky. 2001).
“2d 329 (1992) for the proposition that this is sufficient to trigger the requirements of KRS 189A.103 and 500 KAR 8:030(2). However, in Cook , hospital personnel admittedly drew the defendant's blood sample at the direction of a police officer.”
Cook v. Commonwealth, 129 S.W.3d 351 (Ky. 2004).
“" [5] This Court observed in Hernandez-Gonzalez that "[t]he 2000 amendment of [KRS 189A.103(1)] to read `has given his consent' makes it unmistakable that a suspected drunk driver must submit to a test to determine blood alcohol concentration.”
Helton v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 555 (Ky. 2010).
“105(2)(b), which requires a warrant to test blood in a fatality accident, and which she argues controls over the "implied consent" statute, KRS 189A.103. She also claims that even if the statutes are not in conflict, then the consent statute and *557 the practice of taking a…”
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 483 S.W.3d 353 (Ky. 2015).
“below; it, the Court of Appeals ruled that nothing in Kentucky’s Implied Consent law prevents an officer, who is- investigating an alcohol-related DUI, from using a blood test as the initial BAC testing method.”
Beach v. Commonwealth, 927 S.W.2d 826 (Ky. 1996).
“The provisions of KRS 189A.103 are based on the public policy determined by the legislature that an individual driving on the highways of Kentucky has given implied consent to the performance of blood, breath and/or urine tests in the event that the individual is suspected of…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.103(2) — 2 cases
Helton v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 555 (Ky. 2010).
“105(2)(b), which requires a warrant to test blood in a fatality accident, and which she argues controls over the "implied consent" statute, KRS 189A.103. She also claims that even if the statutes are not in conflict, then the consent statute and *557 the practice of taking a…”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 560 S.W.3d 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
“KRS 189A.103 provides in relevant part: The following provisions shall apply to any person who operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle .”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.103(3) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.103(3)(a) — 5 cases
Helton v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 555 (Ky. 2010).
“105(2)(b), which requires a warrant to test blood in a fatality accident, and which she argues controls over the "implied consent" statute, KRS 189A.103. She also claims that even if the statutes are not in conflict, then the consent statute and *557 the practice of taking a…”
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 122 S.W.3d 524 (Ky. 2003).
“The court in Wirth went on to say that: *527 The only additional requirements are found in KRS 189A.103 (3)(a), KRS 189A.103(4), and 500 KAR 8:020(2), which may be satisfied by means of business or public records showing compliance with the additional requirements.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.103(4) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 122 S.W.3d 524 (Ky. 2003).
“The court in Wirth went on to say that: *527 The only additional requirements are found in KRS 189A.103 (3)(a), KRS 189A.103(4), and 500 KAR 8:020(2), which may be satisfied by means of business or public records showing compliance with the additional requirements.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.103(5) — 3 cases
Cook v. Commonwealth, 129 S.W.3d 351 (Ky. 2004).
“" [5] This Court observed in Hernandez-Gonzalez that "[t]he 2000 amendment of [KRS 189A.103(1)] to read `has given his consent' makes it unmistakable that a suspected drunk driver must submit to a test to determine blood alcohol concentration.”
Beach v. Commonwealth, 927 S.W.2d 826 (Ky. 1996).
“The provisions of KRS 189A.103 are based on the public policy determined by the legislature that an individual driving on the highways of Kentucky has given implied consent to the performance of blood, breath and/or urine tests in the event that the individual is suspected of…”
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 483 S.W.3d 353 (Ky. 2015).
“below; it, the Court of Appeals ruled that nothing in Kentucky’s Implied Consent law prevents an officer, who is- investigating an alcohol-related DUI, from using a blood test as the initial BAC testing method.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.103(6) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.103(7) — 9 cases
Commonwealth v. Long, 118 S.W.3d 178 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“After our review of the statute, we conclude that the district court erred in applying the provisions of KRS 189A.103 to Long. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal.”
Commonwealth v. Wirth, 936 S.W.2d 78 (Ky. 1996).
“By virtue of KRS 189A.103, one who operates a motor vehicle consents to a test of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration.”
G.G. v. Commonwealth, 496 S.W.3d 492 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).
“KRS 189A.103 provides for consent to test for alcohol or other substances and states in relevant part as follows: The following provisions shall apply to any person who operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle or a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle in this…”
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.