City of Dodge City v. Webb
109634
| Kan. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. officer stopped Webb for an inadequately illuminated license plate; officer smelled alcohol and ultimately arrested Webb for DUI after failed field sobriety tests and a PBT of .127.
- At the jail officer read the DC-70 implied consent form and asked Webb to submit to an Intoxilyzer breath test; Webb hesitated and said he did not want to.
- Officer Warkentin told Webb that department policy required applying for a search warrant if the Intoxilyzer was refused and that he would obtain a warrant for a blood draw; Webb, afraid of needles, then consented to the breath test, which showed an illegal BAC.
- Webb moved to suppress the breath test results, arguing his consent was coerced because officers threatened to obtain a warrant that they could not lawfully get under Kansas implied consent law in effect at the time.
- District court and Court of Appeals found probable cause for a warrant existed and that Kansas law did not prohibit obtaining a warrant after a refusal; the Supreme Court granted review on the narrow statutory-interpretation issue and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a threat to obtain a blood-draw warrant after implied-consent refusal invalidates consent when statute precludes subsequent testing | Webb: 2008 implied-consent revisions still effectively barred "additional testing" after refusal except in injury/fatality cases, so officers lacked statutory authority and their threat coerced consent | State: The 2008 amendments deleted the blanket prohibition; the implied-consent statute was silent on warrants after refusal, so officers could seek a warrant consistent with Fourth Amendment requirements | The Court held the post-2008 implied-consent scheme was silent on warrants after refusal; no statutory bar existed, so the threat was not coercive where probable cause existed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adee, 241 Kan. 825 (1987) (earlier holding that a warrant could not be used to compel blood after an implied-consent refusal)
- State v. Brown, 245 Kan. 604 (1989) (threat to obtain warrant is valid if probable cause exists; officers act at their peril otherwise)
- State v. James, 301 Kan. 898 (2015) (when state statute affords greater protection than Fourth Amendment, statute governs; silence permits constitutional analysis)
- State v. May, 293 Kan. 858 (2012) (post-refusal testing previously recognized only in accident-with-injury/fatality exception)