Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue
242 P.3d 1179
| Kan. | 2010Background
- Smith appeals a 1-year license suspension after DUI arrest; district court upheld the suspension following agency action.
- Smith challenges whether there were reasonable grounds to support the evidentiary breath test and the constitutionality of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 8-1012 allowing a preliminary breath test on reasonable suspicion.
- Trooper stopped Smith for a taillight defect; during contact, odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, and Smith's admission of drinking were observed.
- Search of Smith's truck revealed alcohol containers; Smith failed prefield sobriety tests; Smith provided a positive preliminary breath test (> .08) before arrest and later tested .099 on the evidentiary breath test.
- Smith argued Miranda warnings were required before his statements about drinking, and challenged the PBT statute as unconstitutional; the hearing officer's findings supported the agency's suspension.
- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there were reasonable grounds to request the evidentiary breath test and that Miranda issues did not render the evidence inadmissible; the statute issue was not reached due to existing grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were there reasonable grounds to request the evidentiary breath test? | Smith argues insufficient grounds to warrant testing. | DOR argues the totality of circumstances supported reasonable grounds. | Reasonable grounds supported the test request. |
| Is K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 8-1012 constitutional because it permits PBT on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause? | Smith asserts unconstitutionality of testing based on reasonable suspicion. | DOR defends statute as valid; and argues grounds independent of custodial issues. | Constitutionality not reached; court did not need to decide due to sufficient grounds supporting testing. |
| Were the breath-test results admissible given custodial interrogation and Miranda warnings? | Smith contends Miranda warnings were required before questioning about drinking. | DOR contends questioning was not custodial; warnings not required. | Questioning not custodial; Miranda warnings not required; breath test admissible. |
| Did the hearing officer properly apply the law to the facts? | Smith claims misapplication of law to the evidence. | DOR asserts proper legal standard and sufficient facts. | Hearing officer properly applied the law; district court affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764 (2006) (reasonable grounds ≈ probable cause; substantial evidence standard)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (traffic stops generally not custodial; Miranda warnings not always required)
- State v. Price, 233 Kan. 706 (1983) (on-scene questioning not custodial; Miranda not triggered)
- Standish v. Department of Revenue, 235 Kan. 900 (1984) (cites Berkemer; custodial analysis framework)
- State v. Ninci, 262 Kan. 21 (1997) (Miranda rights scope in Kansas context)