State v. Edgar
246 P.3d 1013
Kan. Ct. App.2011Background
- Officer observed odor of alcohol and learned Edgar's license was suspended.
- Edgar admitted drinking beer; initial suspicion of DUI established.
- Edgar performed field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand) with mixed results.
- Officer requested a preliminary breath test (PBT) and informed Edgar he could not refuse.
- Edgar submitted to a PBT yielding .122; blood test later showed .10 BAC.
- Judgment included a BIDS attorney-fee assessment noted as TBD and later remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable suspicion to request PBT | Lambert had initial suspicion due to odor and admission. | Passing sobriety tests dispels suspicion per Edgar. | Totality of circumstances supports reasonable suspicion for PBT. |
| Voluntariness of consent to PBT | Implied consent under statute; no requirement of knowing consent. | Lambert's statements negated voluntary consent. | Consent implied; notices not required to negate validity; suppression not warranted. |
| BIDS attorney-fee remand | Unknown amount at sentencing violated 22-4513. | Initial assessment pending; not punitive. | Remand for reconsideration of BIDS fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mara, 186 Vt. 389, 987 A.2d 939 (Vt. 2009) (reaffirmed that suspicion may persist after partial field testing and observations)
- State v. Pollman, 286 Kan. 881, 190 P.3d 234 (Kan. 2008) (odor of alcohol and admission support PBT request)
- State v. Jones, 279 Kan. 71, 106 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005) (implied consent not required for PBT; notices differ between tests)
- State v. Luft, 248 Kan. 911, 811 P.2d 873 (Kan. 1991) (warnings for tests under 8-1001 compared to 8-1012)
- State v. Phillips, 289 Kan. 28, 210 P.3d 93 (Kan. 2009) (remand for BIDS fees when amount not determined at sentencing)