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 9.78 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, 9.78
• 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)