Kansas DUI Defense and Division of Vehicles Administrative Hearing Package

KANSAS DUI DEFENSE AND DIVISION OF VEHICLES ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PACKAGE

CRITICAL DEADLINE NOTICE

The DC-27 (pink form) served by the arresting officer triggers a FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAY window to request an administrative hearing with the Kansas Department of Revenue. Failure to timely request — accompanied by the $50 fee — bars contest of the administrative suspension. Driving privileges typically continue until the hearing date if a timely request is filed. The criminal case has separate deadlines.

PART 1 — CASE INTAKE AND TIMELINE

Client Information

Arrest Information

Chemical Test

Prior Record (Kansas Uses Lifetime Lookback With Some Exceptions)

☐ No prior DUI — 1st conviction (Class B misd.)
☐ One prior — 2nd conviction (Class A misd.)
☐ Two priors — 3rd conviction (Class A misd. if priors > 10 yrs; nonperson felony if any within 10 yrs)
☐ Three priors — 4th+ (nonperson felony, 90 days – 1 yr)
☐ Diversion ineligibility per § 12-4415 / § 22-2908

PART 2 — KANSAS DUI STATUTORY SUMMARY

K.S.A. § 8-1567 — Elements

A person commits DUI by operating or attempting to operate any vehicle within Kansas while:

• (a)(1) BAC ≥ 0.08, as measured within 3 hours;
• (a)(2) Under the influence of alcohol to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving;
• (a)(3) Under the influence of any drug or combination to such a degree;
• (a)(4) Under the influence of a combination of alcohol and any drug.

Four-Tier Penalty Structure (§ 8-1567)

Administrative Suspension Periods (§ 8-1014)

Test Refusal:

Test Failure (BAC < .15):

Test Failure (BAC ≥ .15):

CDL Disqualification (§ 8-2,142)

• 1st DUI (any vehicle): 1-year CDL disqualification (3 years if HAZMAT);
• 2nd DUI: Lifetime CDL disqualification.

Diversion Considerations

DUI diversion is governed by K.S.A. §§ 12-4415 and 22-2908. Eligibility may be limited where a prior DUI diversion/conviction exists or a CDL is held. Each county/municipality has its own diversion policy.

PART 3 — IMPLIED CONSENT SUMMARY (K.S.A. § 8-1001)

Any person who operates or attempts to operate a vehicle within Kansas is deemed to have given consent to one or more tests of blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person was DUI.

Required Officer Notices Before Testing (§ 8-1001(k))

The officer must give the driver, orally and in writing, notices including:

• Kansas law requires the driver to submit to testing;
• Refusal will result in a 1-year suspension followed by 2-year IID restriction (escalating with priors);
• Test results may be used against the driver in criminal and administrative proceedings;
• The driver may obtain an additional test at their own expense;
• If a CDL holder, additional disqualification consequences apply.

Defense Audit

• Were the K.S.A. § 8-1001(k) notices given correctly, in writing, and read aloud?
• Was the 20-minute deprivation period observed before breath testing? Mitchell v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, 32 Kan. App. 2d 298 (2004).
• Was the Intoxilyzer 9000 a KDHE-approved instrument with current certification?
• Was the operator certified by KDHE?
• For blood draws, was a warrant obtained per State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (2016) (refusal cannot be criminalized) and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)?

PART 4 — REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING (K.S.A. §§ 8-1002, 8-1020)

To: Kansas Department of Revenue
Division of Vehicles — Driver Solutions
Administrative Hearings Section
P.O. Box 2369
Topeka, KS 66601-2369

Re: Request for Administrative Hearing — Implied Consent
Driver: [________________________________]
DL No.: [________________________________]
DC-27 Issuance Date: [__/__/____]
Date Received by Driver: [__/__/____]

Pursuant to K.S.A. §§ 8-1002 and 8-1020, the above-named licensee, by and through undersigned counsel, REQUESTS AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING to contest the proposed administrative suspension arising from ☐ refusal of chemical testing ☐ test failure (BAC ≥ 0.08) ☐ test failure (BAC ≥ 0.15) on [__/__/____].

Format / Procedural Requests

☐ In-person hearing (failure to request results in default to telephonic hearing)
☐ Subpoena for the certifying officer
☐ Subpoena for the breath-test operator
☐ Subpoena for the custodian of records (Intoxilyzer 9000 certification, calibration logs)
☐ Subpoena for the KDHE breath-test certification records custodian
☐ Continuance of any conflicting hearing date

Issues to be Contested (§ 8-1020(h))

For test refusal cases:
☐ Whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was DUI;
☐ Whether the person was in custody/arrest for an alcohol-related offense, an alcohol-related accident, or involved in a vehicle accident resulting in injury/property damage;
☐ Whether the officer presented and the person refused the test;
☐ Whether the officer gave the K.S.A. § 8-1001(k) notices.

For test failure cases:
☐ Whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was DUI;
☐ Whether the arrest/custody was lawful;
☐ Whether testing was completed and the result indicated BAC ≥ 0.08 (or 0.15);
☐ Whether testing equipment was certified and operated correctly by a certified operator;
☐ Whether the K.S.A. § 8-1001(k) notices were given.

Application Fee

Enclosed: $50 application fee (check / money order payable to "Kansas Department of Revenue"). ☐

Stay of Suspension

Driving privileges shall remain in full force and effect through the date of the hearing.

Submitted: [__/__/____]
Attorney: [________________________________]
Kansas Bar No.: [________________________________]
Address / Phone / Email: [________________________________]

PART 5 — DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY (CRIMINAL CASE)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [______________] COUNTY, KANSAS

Case No.: [________________________________]
Div. No.: [________________________________]
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to K.S.A. § 22-3212, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, Defendant requests:

A. Stop, Detention, and Arrest

1. Dash-cam, body-worn camera, and station-house video from all officers;
2. CAD logs, dispatch recordings, 911 calls;
3. Arrest report, supplemental reports, field notes;
4. Officer training records (POST/KLETC, SFST, ARIDE, DRE).

B. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

5. SFST scoring sheets, conditions of administration;
6. NHTSA SFST certification records.

C. Chemical Testing

7. Intoxilyzer 9000 (or other approved instrument) ID, location, calibration history, and KDHE certification;
8. Breath operator's certification;
9. 20-minute deprivation log;
10. Subject test record / evidence ticket;
11. For blood: chain of custody, kit lot number, KBI laboratory SOPs, analyst credentials, raw chromatograms, proficiency testing.

D. Implied Consent

12. Signed § 8-1001(k) notices form (oral and written);
13. DC-27 / DC-28 forms;
14. Any blood-draw warrant and supporting affidavit;
15. Video/audio of consent advisory and test administration.

E. Brady / Giglio

16. All exculpatory and impeachment material on State witnesses (pending discipline, prior false statements, Brady-list status, lawsuit settlements).

Date: [__/__/____]
/s/ [Attorney Name], Kansas Bar No. [______]

PART 6 — MOTION TO SUPPRESS

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [______________] COUNTY, KANSAS

Case No.: [________________________________]
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

COMES NOW Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and §§ 10 and 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, moves the Court to suppress all evidence flowing from the stop, detention, arrest, and testing of Defendant on [__/__/____].

I. Lack of Reasonable Suspicion

1. The stated basis for the stop — [________________] — does not amount to reasonable, articulable suspicion. State v. Coleman, 292 Kan. 813 (2011); State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657 (2009).

II. Lack of Probable Cause to Arrest

2. The totality of the circumstances does not establish probable cause to believe Defendant violated § 8-1567.
3. SFSTs were administered out of NHTSA compliance.

III. Implied Consent and Notice Violations

4. The K.S.A. § 8-1001(k) notices were not properly given (omitted, misleading, or not provided in writing). State v. Pollman, 286 Kan. 881 (2008).
5. Defendant's purported consent was coerced by the threat of criminal refusal prosecution — a basis the Kansas Supreme Court has held unconstitutional. State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (2016).

IV. Warrant / Blood-Draw Violations

6. Blood was withdrawn without a warrant and without a recognized exigency exception, in violation of Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016).

V. Breath-Test Foundation

7. The Intoxilyzer was not certified by KDHE at the time of testing;
8. The operator was not properly certified;
9. The 20-minute deprivation period was not observed. Mitchell v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, 32 Kan. App. 2d 298 (2004).

VI. Miranda

10. Custodial statements were obtained without Miranda warnings.

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this Court suppress all evidence flowing from the unlawful stop, arrest, and testing.

Hearing Requested.

Date: [__/__/____]
/s/ [Attorney Name], Kansas Bar No. [______]

PART 7 — APPLICATION FOR RESTRICTED DRIVING PRIVILEGES WITH IID (K.S.A. § 8-1015)

To: Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles

Re: Application for Restricted Driving Privileges with Ignition Interlock
Applicant: [________________________________]
DL No.: [________________________________]
Suspension Effective Date: [__/__/____]

Pursuant to K.S.A. § 8-1015, Applicant requests Restricted Driving Privileges authorizing operation to and from / in the course of:

☐ Employment
☐ School / postsecondary education
☐ Substance-abuse treatment / SR-22 / IID provider
☐ Medical care
☐ Religious worship
☐ Other (specify): [________________]

Required Showings

Hardship Statement

[________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________]

Applicant Signature: _________________________ Date: [__/__/____]

PART 8 — PLEA / DIVERSION NEGOTIATION WORKSHEET

A. Charge Analysis

B. State's / Municipal Prosecutor's Offer

C. DUI Diversion Analysis (K.S.A. §§ 12-4415, 22-2908)

If all boxes checked → Pursue diversion. Note: DUI diversion is counted as a prior for any future DUI.

D. Defense Mitigation

E. Collateral Consequences

F. Client Acknowledgment

I have reviewed the offer, diversion option, and trial alternatives with my attorney.

☐ Accept plea ☐ Pursue diversion ☐ Counter at: [______] ☐ Reject and proceed

Client: _________________ Date: [__/__/____]
Attorney: _______________ Date: [__/__/____]

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• K.S.A. Chapter 8, Article 10 (Implied Consent / DUI) — https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch08/
• K.S.A. §§ 8-1567, 8-1001, 8-1002, 8-1014, 8-1015, 8-1020, 8-2,142
• K.S.A. §§ 12-4415, 22-2908 (Diversion)
• Kansas Department of Revenue — Driver Solutions: https://www.ksrevenue.gov/dovindex.html
• KDHE Breath-Testing Standards (current edition)
• State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (2016)
• State v. Pollman, 286 Kan. 881 (2008)
• State v. Coleman, 292 Kan. 813 (2011)
• State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657 (2009)
• Mitchell v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, 32 Kan. App. 2d 298 (2004)
• Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)
• Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)
• NHTSA DWI Detection & SFST Manual (current ed.)

DISCLAIMER: This template is a starting framework, not legal advice. Verify current Kansas law before filing. Counsel must tailor every filing to the specific facts.