Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 189A
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.104 (2026)

Alcohol or substance testing subject to refusal or enhancement of

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

penalties under KRS Chapter 189A. (1) The only alcohol or substance testing that is subject to refusal or enhancement of penalties provided for in this chapter is: (a) Breath analysis testing by an instrument installed, tested, and maintained by the Commonwealth for that specific purpose at a police station or detention facility; (b) Blood or urine testing at the request of the officer at a police station, detention facility, or medical facility; or (c) Combination of tests required in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this subsection. (2) The results of any breath analysis by an instrument other than one specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be inadmissible in court. Effective:April 6, 2022 History: Amended 2022 Ky. Acts ch. 83, sec. 3, effective April 6, 2022. -- Created 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 467, sec. 30, effective October 1, 2000.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2021 · leading case: Elery v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 78 (Ky. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Elery v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 78 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 3× “The trial court ruled that the test results were inadmissible under KRS 189A.104, which provides: (1) The only alcohol or substance testing that is subject to refusal or enhancement of penalties provided for in this chapter is: a.”
Greene v. Commonwealth, 244 S.W.3d 128 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “104(2), which provides that “[t]he results of any breath analysis by an instrument other than [a machine installed, tested, and maintained by the Commonwealth for that specific purpose at a police station or detention facility] shall be inadmissible in court.” Given this…”
Stump v. Commonwealth, 289 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “2008), resolves the question of whether KRS 189A.104 applies to the case at hand.”
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 483 S.W.3d 353 (Ky. 2015). “See KRS 189A.104. However, refusal to submit to testing can result in the immediate suspension of the driver’s license and a double minimum jail sentence.”
G.G. v. Commonwealth, 496 S.W.3d 492 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016). “See KRS 189A.104. However, refusal to submit to testing can result in the immediate suspension of the driver’s license and a double minimum jail sentence.”
Hoppenjans v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 290 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). “” Similarly, KRS 189A.104(2) prohibits the introduction of any breath analysis by an instrument other than stationary machine installed, tested, and maintained by the Commonwealth for that specific purpose.”
State v. Eisenhour, 410 S.W.3d 771 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). “The trial court had ruled that the test results were inadmissible under KRS 189A.104(2). 11 *778 Assuming that the PBT was otherwise admissible by proper foundation under its Rules of Evidence, id.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Holly Combs (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “103(1); KRS 189A.104(1)(b). McCarthy dealt with a refusal and, so, did not address the situation of whether suppression can be warranted based on the coercive and now incorrect implied consent warning about the imposition of enhanced penalties for refusing warrantless blood…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.104(1)(b) — 1 case
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Holly Combs (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “103(1); KRS 189A.104(1)(b). McCarthy dealt with a refusal and, so, did not address the situation of whether suppression can be warranted based on the coercive and now incorrect implied consent warning about the imposition of enhanced penalties for refusing warrantless blood…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.104(2) — 5 cases
Elery v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 78 (Ky. 2012). “The trial court ruled that the test results were inadmissible under KRS 189A.104, which provides: (1) The only alcohol or substance testing that is subject to refusal or enhancement of penalties provided for in this chapter is: a.”
Greene v. Commonwealth, 244 S.W.3d 128 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008). “104(2), which provides that “[t]he results of any breath analysis by an instrument other than [a machine installed, tested, and maintained by the Commonwealth for that specific purpose at a police station or detention facility] shall be inadmissible in court.” Given this…”
Stump v. Commonwealth, 289 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). “2008), resolves the question of whether KRS 189A.104 applies to the case at hand.”
Hoppenjans v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 290 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). “” Similarly, KRS 189A.104(2) prohibits the introduction of any breath analysis by an instrument other than stationary machine installed, tested, and maintained by the Commonwealth for that specific purpose.”
State v. Eisenhour, 410 S.W.3d 771 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). “The trial court had ruled that the test results were inadmissible under KRS 189A.104(2). 11 *778 Assuming that the PBT was otherwise admissible by proper foundation under its Rules of Evidence, id.”
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.