Smith v. Kansas Department of Revenue
242 P.3d 1179
| Kan. | 2010Background
- Smith was stopped at ~9 p.m. July 24, 2007, for a taillight violation on a pickup pulling a trailer; lights were faulty but stop routine.
- Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol, saw bloodshot watery eyes, and Smith admitted having a few drinks and that his last drink was ~30 minutes prior.
- Search of Smith’s truck revealed beer containers; a beer bottle cap and an open bottle were found, and a full can was in a cup holder.
- Smith underwent prefield sobriety tests, two field sobriety tests with minor clues, and a preliminary breath test (PBT) indicating intoxication; he was then transported to the sheriff’s office for an evidentiary breath test (Intoxilyzer 5000) yielding 0.099.
- After an administrative hearing, the Kansas Department of Revenue suspended Smith’s driving privileges for 1 year; Smith challenged (1) probable cause/reasonable grounds, (2) constitutionality of 8-1012, (3) admissibility of breath test due to Miranda, and (4) whether the hearing officer erred.
- The district court affirmed the agency’s action, and the Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there were reasonable grounds to support the evidentiary breath test | Smith challenges the sufficiency of the grounds. | Kansas argues the totality of circumstances supports reasonable grounds. | Yes; reasonable grounds existed. |
| Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 8-1012 allowing PBT on reasonable suspicion | Argues statute is unconstitutional for relying on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. | Argues statute appropriate for administrative purposes and corroborated by facts. | Constitutionality not necessary to decide given other proper grounds. |
| Admissibility of Smith’s admissions about drinking under Miranda | Smith says statements require Miranda warnings as custodial interrogation. | Interrogation during a traffic stop is not custodial; no Miranda needed. | Not custodial; Miranda warnings not required. |
| Whether the hearing officer properly applied the law to the facts | Argues error in applying law to disputed facts. | Agency interpretation supported by facts. | Agency’s application of law sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764 (2006) (probable cause vs. reasonable grounds; totality of circumstances)
- Fewell v. State, 286 Kan. 370 (2008) (probable cause and totality of circumstances standard)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (traffic stops generally not custodial; Miranda warnings not required ordinarily)
- State v. Jones, 283 Kan. 186 (2007) (custody determination for Miranda in traffic-stop context; de novo review)
- State v. Price, 233 Kan. 706 (1983) (on-scene questioning not custodial interrogation; Miranda not required)