Kentucky DUI Defense and Administrative License Hearing Package

KENTUCKY DUI DEFENSE AND ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE HEARING PACKAGE

Charge: Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence — KRS § 189A.010
Defendant / Licensee: [_________________________________]
Date of Arrest: [__/__/____]
Citation / Case No.: [_________________________________]
Arresting Agency / Officer: [_________________________________]
District / Circuit Court: [_________________________________] County, Kentucky

PART 1 — KENTUCKY DUI / IMPLIED CONSENT OVERVIEW

1.1 Per Se Thresholds (KRS § 189A.010(1))

1.2 Aggravating Circumstances — KRS § 189A.010(11)

The minimum jail term is doubled if any one of these is present:

• ☐ Speed exceeding posted limit by 30 mph or more
• ☐ Wrong-way driving on a limited-access highway
• ☐ Accident causing death or serious physical injury
• ☐ BAC of 0.15 or higher
• ☐ Refusal of breath, blood, or urine test
• ☐ Passenger under age 12 in vehicle

1.3 Suspension Periods on Conviction (KRS § 189A.070(1))

1.4 Implied Consent (KRS § 189A.105)

Officer must read the statutory implied-consent warning. Refusal is admissible at trial (KRS § 189A.105(2)(a)2.) and triggers pretrial suspension under KRS § 189A.200 and post-conviction enhancement.

PART 2 — PRETRIAL LICENSE-SUSPENSION HEARING REQUEST

(KRS § 189A.200 / § 189A.220 — District Court of [______] County)

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY v. [DEFENDANT]
Case No.: [____________]

MOTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED PRETRIAL LICENSE SUSPENSION AND REQUEST FOR IGNITION INTERLOCK LICENSE UNDER KRS § 189A.340

Defendant, by counsel, respectfully moves the Court under KRS § 189A.220 for a hearing on the Commonwealth's motion (or anticipated motion) to suspend Defendant's operator's license pretrial pursuant to KRS § 189A.200, and states:

1. ☐ Defendant was arrested on [__/__/____] and charged under KRS § 189A.010.
2. ☐ The Commonwealth has moved / is required to move for pretrial suspension based on (check all that apply):
   - ☐ Alleged refusal of testing — KRS § 189A.200(1)(a)
   - ☐ Prior DUI within five (5) years — KRS § 189A.200(1)(b)
   - ☐ Prior refusal suspension within five (5) years — KRS § 189A.200(1)(c)
   - ☐ Accident causing death or serious physical injury — KRS § 189A.200(1)(d)
3. ☐ Defendant contests the proposed suspension on the following grounds (mark all applicable):
   - ☐ Officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe Defendant violated KRS § 189A.010(1)
   - ☐ Officer did not properly inform Defendant of consequences under KRS § 189A.105(2)(a)
   - ☐ No actual refusal occurred (Defendant attempted compliance / equipment failed / medical inability)
   - ☐ Alleged prior offense or refusal is not within the five-year lookback
   - ☐ Other: [_________________________________]
4. ☐ In the alternative, and without waiving the foregoing, Defendant requests authorization to apply to the Transportation Cabinet for an ignition interlock license under KRS § 189A.340 during any period of pretrial suspension.

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court set this matter for hearing as required by KRS § 189A.220, decline to enter pretrial suspension, or in the alternative authorize an ignition interlock license.

Respectfully submitted,
[ATTORNEY NAME] — KBA No. [______]
[Firm / Address / Phone / Email]

PART 3 — KRS § 189A.107 REFUSAL-SUSPENSION HEARING CHECKLIST

The Court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the licensee refused. Counsel should test each element:

• ☐ Officer had reasonable grounds to believe operator violated KRS § 189A.010(1)
• ☐ Officer was certified to request testing
• ☐ Statutory implied-consent admonition under KRS § 189A.105(2)(a) was read verbatim
• ☐ Defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel (10–15 min) per KRS § 189A.105(3)
• ☐ Defendant's conduct constituted an unequivocal refusal (vs. inability to perform)
• ☐ No medical, equipment, or language barrier excused compliance
• ☐ Officer did not abandon the request prematurely

Recommended cross-examination topics: [_________________________________]

PART 4 — DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY (RCr 7.24 + KRS § 189A.103/104)

TO: Commonwealth's Attorney / County Attorney, [______] County

Pursuant to RCr 7.24, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), Defendant demands:

1. ☐ All written or recorded statements of Defendant — RCr 7.24(1)(a)
2. ☐ Defendant's prior criminal record
3. ☐ Books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects — RCr 7.24(1)(b)
4. ☐ Results / reports of physical or mental examinations and scientific tests, including:
   - ☐ Breath-test result printout (Intoxilyzer 9000 / 8000) and 20-minute observation log
   - ☐ Certificate of analysis under KRS § 189A.103(3)
   - ☐ Calibration / accuracy-check records for the breath instrument for [___] days before/after test — KRS § 189A.103(4); 500 KAR 8:020
   - ☐ Certification of operator/technician — KRS § 189A.103(7)
   - ☐ Source code / firmware version of breath instrument
   - ☐ Blood-draw chain of custody, lab bench notes, gas-chromatograph data, retention records
5. ☐ Body-worn-camera and in-car video — entire arrest sequence (pre-stop through booking)
6. ☐ CAD / dispatch logs and 911 audio
7. ☐ Officer's notes, field sobriety test (SFST) score sheet, NHTSA certification of administering officer
8. ☐ Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) clue documentation
9. ☐ Any Brady / Giglio material on the arresting officer (sustained complaints, prior false-testimony findings, IA records)
10. ☐ Witness list and statements

Response deadline: [__/__/____]

PART 5 — MOTION TO SUPPRESS

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Defendant moves under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, Sections 10 and 11 of the Kentucky Constitution, and RCr 8.27 (the current suppression-of-evidence rule, successor to former RCr 9.78, which was deleted by Supreme Court Order 2014-22 eff. Jan. 1, 2015) to suppress:

• ☐ All evidence flowing from the traffic stop (lack of reasonable suspicion — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; Commonwealth v. Bucalo, 422 S.W.3d 253 (Ky. 2013))
• ☐ Statements obtained without Miranda warnings (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436)
• ☐ Results of the breath / blood / urine test for failure to comply with KRS § 189A.103 and 500 KAR 8:020 (20-minute observation; certified operator; instrument accuracy)
• ☐ Blood-test results obtained without a warrant or valid consent (Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141; Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438; Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___ (2019))
• ☐ Field sobriety test results not administered per NHTSA standards
• ☐ Evidence obtained after unlawful prolongation of the stop (Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348)

Grounds (fact-specific): [_________________________________]

Relief requested: Order suppressing the foregoing evidence and any fruits thereof.

PART 6 — IGNITION INTERLOCK LICENSE / HARDSHIP LICENSE PETITION

(KRS § 189A.340 / § 189A.410)

TO: Transportation Cabinet — Division of Driver Licensing, Frankfort, KY
AND [______] District / Circuit Court, [______] County

Licensee / Petitioner: [________________________________]
Operator License No.: [____________] DOB: [__/__/____]
Court Case No.: [____________]

Relief sought:

• ☐ Ignition Interlock License under KRS § 189A.340 (preferred remedy)
• ☐ Hardship License under KRS § 189A.410 (only if statutorily eligible)

Statutory eligibility — IIL (KRS § 189A.340):

• ☐ Petitioner has insured the vehicle(s) on which IID will be installed
• ☐ IID will be installed by Cabinet-approved provider at petitioner's expense
• ☐ Petitioner agrees to monthly monitoring and data-download requirements
• ☐ Petitioner has no current revocation for an unrelated reason that would bar issuance
• ☐ For first offense, KRS § 189A.085 authorizes issuance with no waiting period

Vehicles to be equipped:

Hardship purposes (if pursuing § 189A.410 alternative):

• ☐ Travel to and from work — Employer: [______________] Address: [______________]
• ☐ Travel to/from school — School: [______________]
• ☐ Travel to/from court-ordered treatment / probation
• ☐ Travel to/from medical care
• ☐ Other essential purpose: [______________]

Petitioner's verification: I declare under penalty of perjury under KRS § 523.030 that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: [__/__/____] Petitioner: [________________________________]

PART 7 — PLEA-DEAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Possible negotiated outcomes:

• ☐ Amendment to Reckless Driving (KRS § 189.290) — viable only with first offense and triable defenses
• ☐ Amendment to Wet Reckless / Public Intoxication — fact-dependent, sometimes available
• ☐ Plea to DUI with minimum penalties + IIL under KRS § 189A.340
• ☐ Pretrial diversion — generally NOT available for DUI; confirm with County Attorney
• ☐ Conditional plea preserving suppression issue — RCr 8.09

Collateral consequences checklist:

• ☐ CDL — disqualification 1 year (1st) / lifetime (2nd) per 49 CFR § 383.51 (KRS § 281A.230)
• ☐ Immigration — confer with immigration counsel (Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356)
• ☐ Professional licensing reporting obligations
• ☐ Insurance / SR-22 — KRS § 187.490
• ☐ Federal employment / security clearance
• ☐ Firearm rights (felony only)
• ☐ Auto insurance premium increase

Defendant acknowledgment:

I, [_______________________], have reviewed this worksheet with counsel and understand the consequences of the proposed plea.

Date: [__/__/____] Defendant: [____________________]
Date: [__/__/____] Counsel: [____________________]

PART 8 — IMPLIED CONSENT SUMMARY (Client Handout)

By driving in Kentucky, you have given implied consent to chemical testing under KRS § 189A.103.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 189A (Driving Under the Influence): https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=37989
• 500 KAR 8:020 (Standards for Breath-Alcohol Testing Instruments)
• Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 7.24, 8.09, 8.27
• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet — Division of Driver Licensing, Ignition Interlock Program
• AOC Forms (Pretrial Suspension): https://kycourts.gov/Resources/Pages/Forms.aspx
• Commonwealth v. Bucalo, 422 S.W.3d 253 (Ky. 2013)
• Beach v. Commonwealth, 927 S.W.2d 826 (Ky. 1996)
• Helton v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 555 (Ky. 2009)
• Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016); Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)