Commonwealth v. Hernandez-Gonzalez

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the implied-consent warning in KRS 189A.105 is defective as applied to suspected first-offense DUI offenders who are not necessarily subject to mandatory jail time. The court nevertheless concluded that the defect did not violate constitutional due process or improperly coerce submission to blood-alcohol testing because Kentucky law imposes a duty to submit and provides no constitutional right to refuse such testing. The court certified the law accordingly.

Holdings

1. The implied-consent warning is defective as applied to suspected drunk drivers who are not necessarily subject to minimum jail time because the warning does not accurately describe the consequences of refusal in those circumstances.
2. The defect in the implied-consent warning does not violate due process or otherwise constitutionally coerce submission to blood-alcohol testing because a suspected drunk driver has no constitutional right to refuse the test.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the implied-consent warning required by KRS 189A.105 is defective on its face or as applied to a suspected first-offense DUI driver who may not be subject to mandatory jail time.
2. Whether any defect in the warning unconstitutionally coerces a person to submit to blood-alcohol testing in violation of federal or Kentucky due process protections.

Disposition

other