State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888

In June 2013 Gregory Nece was stopped for a defective headlight, showed signs of impairment, failed field sobriety tests, and was arrested; he received the standard DC-70 implied consent advisory and agreed to a breath test (.162 BAC).
The advisory warned that refusal could result in a separate criminal charge, license suspension, and that refusal could be used against the driver; Nece did not refuse and therefore was not charged under the refusal statute (K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025).
Nece moved to suppress the breath-test results, arguing his consent was not voluntary because the advisory coerced him by threatening criminal penalties for refusal.
The district court suppressed the breath result as involuntary; the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding the advisory accurately stated the law and did not render consent involuntary.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, considered its recent holding in State v. Ryce (which declared K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025 facially unconstitutional), and concluded the advisory was inaccurate and coercive in light of Ryce, so Nece’s consent was involuntary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nece’s consent to breath testing was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment	Nece: Consent was coerced because the advisory wrongly threatened criminal penalties for refusal, so consent was involuntary	State: Advisory accurately summarized the law (including criminal refusal penalties), so informing of consequences does not make consent involuntary	Court: Consent was involuntary because advisory misrepresented legal consequences after Ryce invalidated the refusal statute
Whether advising a suspect of legal consequences for refusal automatically coerces consent	Nece: The specific false threat here did coerce consent	State: Advising of accurate legal consequences does not render consent invalid	Court: Accurate advisories are permissible; false or legally inaccurate advisories are coercive and invalidate consent
Whether the good-faith exception should salvage evidence obtained after an inaccurate advisory	Nece: Not applicable	State: (argued below) evidence could be admitted under good-faith reliance on statute	Court: State waived the argument on appeal; court declined to apply good-faith exception here
Whether other statutes could justify criminal penalties for refusal, making the advisory accurate	Nece: No facts showed alternative criminal basis applied here	State: Hypothetically other statutes (e.g., obstruction) might apply	Court: No showing such statutes applied here; advisory was not accurate in this case

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (valid consent requires proof it was freely and voluntarily given)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to state evidence obtained via unreasonable searches)
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent induced by false claim of lawful authority is invalid)
South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (advising suspects of consequences can present difficult but constitutionally permissible choices)
State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (Kansas statute criminalizing refusal to submit to DUI tests held facially unconstitutional)