449 P.3d 756
Kan.2019Background
- In July 2012 a Hays police officer stopped Dustin Perkins, arrested him for DUI, transported him to the station, and advised him under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1025; Perkins consented and a breath test showed BAC 0.158.
- Perkins moved to suppress the breath-test result; the district court found consent voluntary, denied suppression, and convicted him after a stipulated bench trial.
- After Perkins’ arrest this court decided State v. Ryce and State v. Nece, holding that K.S.A. 8-1025’s criminalization of refusal rendered implied-consent advisories coercive and involuntary.
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Birchfield held warrantless blood tests unconstitutional but indicated warrantless breath tests may be permissible.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals ordered supplemental briefing, then affirmed the denial of suppression on two alternative grounds: (1) search incident to arrest, and (2) the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the officer reasonably relied on the then-valid statute.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals, adopting the good-faith statutory-reliance rationale and declining to reach the search-incident-to-arrest argument; a concurrence signaled willingness to reconsider adopting federal good-faith doctrine under the Kansas Constitution in a later case.
Issues
| Issue | Perkins' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warrantless breath test an unconstitutional search because consent was coerced by K.S.A. 8-1025? | Consent invalid under Nece/Ryce; breath test results should be suppressed. | Officer relied on then-valid statute; breath test evidence admissible. | Court assumed consent invalid but held evidence admissible under the good-faith exception to exclusion. |
| May the State raise alternative exceptions (search incident to arrest; good faith) on appeal though not argued below? | Preservation rule bars new theories on appeal. | Court of Appeals invited supplemental briefing; issues involve legal questions on stipulated facts. | Court applied preservation exception for questions of law on admitted facts and considered the new theories. |
| Does the good-faith exception (statutory reliance) apply when a statute later is found unconstitutional? | No; Nece I foreclosed relying on statute to save coerced consent. | Yes; under Krull/Daniel an officer reasonable reliance on a statute later found unconstitutional saves evidence. | Yes; relying on Krull/Daniel, the officer’s reliance on K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1025 was objectively reasonable, so the exclusionary rule does not require suppression. |
| Did the Legislature abandon its duty so the whole implied-consent scheme is invalid? | Argues the Legislature abdicated and entire scheme should be invalid. | Only the refusal-criminalization provisions were invalidated; the rest of the scheme remains. | Rejected Perkins’ claim; only the refusal-criminalization provisions were invalidated, not the entire statutory scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (Kan. 2016) (Kansas decision invalidating statutory refusal criminalization)
- State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888 (Kan. 2016) (same)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood tests unconstitutional; breath tests may be permissible)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (good-faith exception extended to reasonable reliance on statutes)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception for reliance on judicially issued warrants)
- State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 (Kan. 2010) (Kansas adopted Krull statutory-reliance good-faith exception)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (exclusionary rule as last resort; good-faith reliance may outweigh deterrence)