State v. Declerck
317 P.3d 794
Kan. Ct. App.2014Background
- In a single-vehicle fatality, Declerck was driver; blood was drawn without a warrant despite her refusal.
- Blood draw occurred under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001 and 8-1001(d)(3) after an officer directed medical personnel.
- District court previously granted suppression motions for lack of probable cause and unlawful blood draw.
- State appealed interlocutorily, arguing 8-1001(b)(2) authorized the draw, implied consent, and good faith as a defense.
- Court held the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment because no probable cause existed and implied consent did not satisfy warrant-exemption requirements; court declined to decide on good faith due to record gaps and disputed facts, affirming suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there probable cause to justify the blood draw? | Declerck: no probable cause; statute cannot supply probable cause. | State: 8-1001(b)(2) provides probable cause via the traffic-offense linkage. | No; no probable cause supported the draw. |
| Does the Kansas implied consent law provide Fourth Amendment consent to a blood draw? | Declerck: implied consent does not equal consent for Fourth Amendment search. | State: implied consent is enough to satisfy consent-based exception. | No; implied consent does not, by itself, satisfy warrant-exemption consent. |
| Does the good faith exception apply to admit the blood test results? | Declerck: good faith should apply because the statute was relied upon. | State: good faith should apply if record showed reliance on 8-1001. | Not addressed on the merits; court declined to rule due to inadequate record and disputed facts. |
| Is K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8-1001(b)(2) constitutional as applied? | Declerck: statute unconstitutional absent probable cause. | State: statute authorizes warrantless blood draws under implied conditions. | Unconstitutional to the extent it allows searches absent probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966) (blood draw implicates Fourth Amendment; warrantless search subject to exceptions)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2013) (case-by-case totality-of-circumstances approach to warrantless blood draws)
- State v. Murry, 271 Kan. 223 (2001) (adopts Schmerber three-part test for warrantless blood draws in Kansas)
- Johnson, 297 Kan. 210 (2013) (implied consent test-supported searches; dissent on specifics of 2007 statute)
- Kim v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 22 Kan. App. 2d 319 (1996) (implied consent law; remedial but not automatically constitutional for Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Bussart-Savaloja, 40 Kan. App. 2d 916 (2008) (implied consent law not dispositive for Fourth Amendment consent)