29 February 2016
 Categories: Law, Blog

A new ruling by the Supreme Court of the state of Kansas makes a big difference in the rights of drivers who are suspected of intoxication while behind the wheel. Not only does this mean a big change for the law of that state, but it could be a sign of things to come nationally, as well. This is what you should know if you live in Kansas.

Implied consent laws make refusing a drug test costly.

Every state has some form of law that gives authorities the right to require drivers who are suspected of being intoxicated by drugs or alcohol to submit to some form of blood, breath, or urine test. These are called "implied consent" laws because drivers essentially agree to submit to the tests (if asked to take one) when they apply for a driver's license.

Every state also has stiff penalties for drivers who refused to submit to any of those tests when asked. Penalties varied from state to state, with most states increasing the penalty per occasion. In some states, refusal is also considered a criminal act, which means that in some states you can face fines and jail time for refusing the test. Up until the ruling in February 2016, Kansas was one of those states.

Intoxication tests are notoriously unreliable.

There are several problems with these tests. First, all it takes is an officer's "reasonable suspicion" to compel someone to comply with one of these physically invasive tests. An officer's reasonable suspicion could be based on nothing more than a driver's bloodshot eyes or slightly wobbly driving. That means that if you're suffering from dry eyes after a long day at work or veered a little on the road because you were trying to see around the car in front of you to find out what's holding up traffic, you could be forced to submit to one those tests.

Second, the tests themselves aren't necessarily that accurate. DUI blood tests can be affected by things like improper seals, false positives, accelerated clotting. Breathalyzers are imprecise at best, and results can even be affected by someone's blood sugar level. Urine tests are considered even less reliable than the other two tests–they are not only subject to the same sort of lab errors as the other tests but rely on the use of mathematical averages, which may not apply to any particular individual.

Criminal penalties for refusal are facing new challenges.

The ruling in Kansas could be a prelude to a national change, as well. The Supreme Court is set to hear three challenges to the state's right to criminalize a driver's refusal to submit to one of these tests. In addition, the ruling in Kansas may give more weight to current cases that argue that the police are, in essence, enacting warrantless searches on very thin evidence in their efforts to snare drunk drivers.

If you don't live in Kansas but are curious as to what the laws in your area are and how they might change, contact an experienced lawyer from a firm like Thomas & Associates, PC.