• Click here to download all Kansas cases
  • Becker v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 157 P.3d 1129 (2007)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Donald A. Becker appeals from a judgment of the trial court affirming the suspension of his driving privileges. Becker contends that his substantive due process rights were violated when he was not provided the implied consent advisories relating to commercial driver's licenses, even though he was not driving a commercial vehicle when he was arrested. We disagree and affirm.
  • Cuthbertson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 42 Kan.App.2d 1049 (2009)
    Holder of commercial and noncommercial driver's licenses sought review of a decision from the Kansas Department of Revenue to impose an administrative suspension of his driver's license and a lifetime suspension of his commercial driver's license (CDL). The District Court, Norton County, William B. Elliott, J., upheld the Department's decision. License holder appealed. The Court of Appeals, Pierron, J., held that the license holder was not prejudiced by gratuitous statements from police officer regarding the effect a failed breath test would have on his CDL. Affirmed.
  • Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 285 Kan. 625 (2008)
    Driver sought review of administrative license suspension based on his failing of a chemical breath test. The District Court, Johnson County, Kevin P. Moriarty, J., dismissed the suspension order. Department of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals, 36 Kan.App.2d 561, 142 P.3d 735, reversed. Driver filed petition for review. The Supreme Court, Beier, J., held that: [1] statutory list of issues that may be decided in an administrative driver's license suspension hearing did not authorize consideration of whether reasonable suspicion existed to support the traffic stop; [2] exclusion of search and seizure issues from agency decision did not violate procedural due process; [3] as a matter of first impression, traffic stop based on officer's mistake of law was not supported by reasonable suspicion; but [4] exclusionary rule would not apply in administrative driver's license suspension proceedings. Affirmed.
  • McQuade v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 256 P.3d 896 (2010)
    Owen McQuade appeals the decision of the district court which affirmed the decision of the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDR) suspending his driving privileges. The facts of this case are not in dispute. McQuade was arrested for DUI but refused to submit to testing. Eventually, McQuade was served with notice of suspension, a form DC–27, and he filed a timely request for an administrative hearing. After that hearing, the suspension of McQuade's driving privileges was upheld. The suspension order contained notice to McQuade that action would be taken on his driving privileges unless he timely filed a petition for review with the district court.
  • Robinson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 37 Kan.App.2d 425 (2007)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Motorist sought judicial review of decision of Kansas Department of Revenue (KDR) affirming the administrative suspension of his commercial driving privileges. On de novo review, the District Court, Lyon County, W. Lee Fowler, J., affirmed. Motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals, Marquardt, P.J., held that: [1] trooper who stopped motorist, who was driving noncommercial vehicle, on suspicion of driving under the influence was not required, under implied consent law, to advise motorist that if he failed a sobriety test or if he refused testing, his commercial driver's license could be administratively suspended for one year, in contrast to 30-day suspension of noncommercial driver's license, and [2] motorist's procedural due process rights were not violated. Affirmed.
  • Rother v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 297 P.3d 1194 (2013)
    Raymond Rother appeals the district court's decision to uphold the Kansas Department of Revenue's (KDR) suspension of his driving privileges. Rother argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for review on the ground that the petition raised issues that were not considered at the administrative hearing. Rother also argues that the administrative hearing officer abused his discretion and violated Rother's due process rights by denying his request for a continuance of the hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court's judgment.
  • State v. Becker, 36 Kan.App.2d 828 (2006)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Ellis County, Thomas L. Toepfer, J., of driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Marquardt, P.J., held that implied consent notice that officer read to defendant prior to breath test did not violate his substantive due process rights. Affirmed.
  • State v. Bradley, 42 Kan.App.2d 104, 208 P.3d 788 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009)
    Substantial compliance with the statutory requirement that driver arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) be given advisory notices before a blood alcohol test is administered is sufficient.
  • State v. Crum, 270 Kan. 870, 19 P.3d 172 (Kan. 2001)
    Warrantless stop and inspection of commercial truck that was authorized to transport property for hire did not violate either federal or state constitution, even though officer stopped truck solely to conduct inspection and lacked any suspicion that there was violation of any state law because commercial trucking occurred on 24-hour basis, governing statute was entirely reasonable in not limiting when commercial vehicle could be stopped. The fact that statute failed to specify frequency of permissible stops was not in and of itself constitutional error. Further, the statute limited inspection to determining whether driver and vehicle were in compliance with applicable motor carrier laws, rules, and regulations, and place of stops, i.e., state highways and trafficways, was sufficiently limited, given public interest in safety.
  • State v. Whiteman, 291 P.3d 1073 (2013)
    Justin L. Whiteman appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the results of a blood-alcohol test he agreed to take after being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). We affirm.
  • Stroud v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 204 P.3d 1191 (2009)
    The limited issue raised by a driver in his petition for review of the administrative suspension of his commercial driver's license for his failure to pass a chemical breath test, that the stop was not based on reasonable suspicion, was properly dismissed. Although the court found that the stop of the driver's vehicle was not based upon reasonable suspicion, the exclusionary rule did not apply in administrative proceedings. Whether reasonable grounds existed to believe a driver was under the influence may be considered in an administrative license suspension proceeding, but not whether a traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion or other constitutional arguments.
  • Tubbs v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 222 P.3d 1019 (2010)
    IMPLIED CONSENT A defendant was not entitled to suppress evidence of his breath test results. Before the defendant was given the breath test, he was provided with a form that contained statutorily required implied consent advisories for commercial driver's licenses (CDL), and there was no requirement for the officer to read CDL advisories to an individual with a CDL when driving a noncommercial vehicle. Therefore the defendant had notice of the impact of a test refusal or test failure on his CDL.

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions