Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court, on rehearing, reaffirmed that K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025, which criminalized refusal to submit to certain testing, is facially unconstitutional. Relying on State v. Ryce and considering the United States Supreme Court's decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, the court affirmed dismissal of the charge against Darwin Estol Wycoff.
Holdings
- K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 is facially unconstitutional.
- The district court correctly dismissed the charge alleging a violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025.
Questions Presented
- Whether K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 is facially unconstitutional.
- Whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota altered the Kansas Supreme Court's prior analysis or required reinstatement of the charge against Wycoff.
- Whether the district court's dismissal of the charge should be affirmed.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (5)
- State v. Ryce, 306 Kan. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 111,698, this day decided) (Ryce II)(followed)
- State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 368 P.3d 342 (2016) (Ryce I)(followed)
- State v. Wycoff, 303 Kan. 885, 367 P.3d 1258 (2016) (Wycoff I)(followed)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 195 L. Ed. 2d 560 (2016)(applied)
- State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 889, 964-72, 368 P.3d 342 (2016)(dissenting reliance)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…