City of Kingman v. Ary, 475 P.3d 1240

May 2014: Ronald S. Ary was arrested for DUI after a crash; officers read implied-consent advisories (oral and DC-70) and obtained a blood sample without a warrant.
Blood test showed BAC of .14 g/100 mL; Ary was convicted in municipal court, waived jury, and preserved suppression issue on appeal to district court.
Ary moved to suppress the blood result arguing the implied-consent statute coerced consent; district court denied suppression, finding the good-faith exception applied.
The Court of Appeals agreed the warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional under Birchfield/Ryce/Nece but nonetheless affirmed under the good-faith exception.
After this court's decision in State v. Perkins (applying the good-faith exception to breath tests obtained under the same implied-consent statute), Ary asked the Kansas Supreme Court to revisit Perkins and to rule the blood evidence inadmissible.
The Kansas Supreme Court declined to overrule Perkins, held the good-faith exception applies to Ary’s blood test, and affirmed both the Court of Appeals and the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ary)	Defendant's Argument (City of Kingman)	Held
Whether the warrantless blood test obtained under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 8-1025 was an unconstitutional search/consent was involuntary	Yes — implied-consent statute criminalized withdrawal of consent and coerced consent; Birchfield/Ryce/Nece support suppression	Prior caselaw and statutory scheme made such testing lawful at the time; blood testing constitutes a search but was routinely upheld	Court accepts earlier holdings that statute rendered consent involuntary (constitutional problem exists)
Whether the good-faith exception permits admission of BAC results obtained under a statute later held unconstitutional	No — Perkins was wrongly decided; the statute was clearly unconstitutional so officer reliance was not objectively reasonable	Yes — under Leon/Krull and this court’s Perkins and Daniel decisions, officer reliance was objectively reasonable and evidence admissible	Yes — the good-faith exception applies; Perkins controls; evidence admissible; convictions affirmed

State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764, 449 P.3d 756 (2019) (applied good-faith exception to breath tests obtained under unconstitutional implied-consent statute)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) (breath tests permissible as search incident to arrest; blood tests are more intrusive and not covered categorically)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw fell within exigent-circumstances analysis under facts)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (no categorical exigency for blood draws; case-by-case exigent-circumstances analysis required)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception for reasonable officer reliance on a warrant)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (extended good-faith exception to objectively reasonable reliance on a statute later found unconstitutional)
State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 242 P.3d 1168 (2010) (Kansas adopted Krull extension; officer reliance on statute can be objectively reasonable)
State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 368 P.3d 342 (2016) (Ryce I) (held statutory criminalization of withdrawal of consent unconstitutional as applied)
State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888, 367 P.3d 1260 (2016) (Nece I) (same conclusion on coercion/involuntary consent)