Wall v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 116779

Background

On March 25, 2016, Craig Wall was arrested for DUI and a law enforcement officer completed a DC-27 certification form indicating Wall failed an evidentiary breath test.
Attached test results showed no breath sample was given (i.e., a refusal), creating an inconsistency with the DC-27 certification.
The officer also failed to check Paragraphs 9–11 on the DC-27, which certify equipment and operator compliance with KDHE requirements.
Wall requested an administrative hearing and raised several constitutional and evidentiary challenges; KDOR affirmed the suspension administratively.
Wall sought judicial review and moved for summary judgment arguing KDOR lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the DC-27 was improperly certified; the district court granted summary judgment and KDOR appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether KDOR had subject matter jurisdiction to proceed given defects in the DC-27 certification	The DC-27 was improperly certified (certified as a failure while results show no sample) so KDOR lacked jurisdiction and must dismiss	KDOR argued district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a jurisdictional defect not raised administratively or in the petition	Court held KDOR lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the DC-27 did not meet statutory certification requirements and KDOR had a mandatory duty to dismiss under the statute
Whether the district court could consider subject matter jurisdiction despite Wall not raising it earlier	Jurisdictional defects can be raised at any time; KDOR had an independent duty to review certification on receipt	KDOR argued issues not raised at administrative hearing/petition were forfeited and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider them	Court held subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and the district court properly considered it because jurisdiction is a threshold question
Whether the certifying officer complied with statutory certification requirements for both failure and refusal grounds	The officer’s certification failed statutory requirements because it certified a failure when results reflected a refusal and omitted required certifications (Paragraphs 9–11)	KDOR did not contest the district court’s factual determination on the certification defects on appeal	Court held the certification failed K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1002(a) for both refusal and failure scenarios, requiring dismissal and return of the license

Key Cases Cited

Fuller v. State, 303 Kan. 478, 363 P.3d 373 (2015) (standard of review and scope on questions of law)
Jahnke v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, 51 Kan. App. 2d 678, 353 P.3d 455 (2015) (subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time)
Pratt v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 48 Kan. App. 2d 586, 296 P.3d 1128 (2013) (statutory interpretation of KDOR procedures reviewed de novo)
Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, 204 P.3d 562 (2009) (administrative review normally limited to issues raised before the agency)
State v. Matzke, 236 Kan. 833, 696 P.2d 396 (1985) (definition of subject matter jurisdiction)
State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 375 P.3d 332 (2016) (jurisdictional threshold principles)
Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. Kimball, 292 Kan. 885, 259 P.3d 676 (2011) (failure to brief an argument on appeal constitutes waiver)
State v. May, 293 Kan. 858, 269 P.3d 1260 (2012) (holding that failure to provide an adequate breath sample constitutes a refusal)