Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, No. 95,029.
Decision Date | 22 December 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 95,029. |
Citation | 148 P.3d 538 |
Parties | Jeremy L. BRUCH, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Michael S. Holland, II, of Holland and Holland, of Russell, argued the cause, and Michael S. Holland, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellant.
John D. Shultz, of Legal Services Bureau, Kansas Department of Revenue, of Topeka, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellee.
The question we must resolve in this appeal is related to an administrative appeal from a driver's license suspension to a district court under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions (KJRA). More specifically the question raised by this appeal is whether a petitioner must strictly comply with the statutory requirements of K.S.A. 77-614(b) in order to preserve his or her appellate rights. We answer this question yes and, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Police officer Darrin Truan clocked Jeremy L. Bruch going 43 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone and observed Bruch's vehicle twice cross the center line into the other lane before pulling him over. Bruch got out of the car to speak with the officer and did not have any difficulty communicating nor was there any slurring of his speech. Bruch was staring and appeared to be concentrating, which the officer had observed with impaired people before, and one of his passengers was admittedly intoxicated. Bruch at first denied that he had been drinking. During the field sobriety tests, the officer began to smell the odor of alcohol, and he asked Bruch again if he had been drinking. Bruch responded that he had drunk something about 5 hours earlier, but he should be fine to drive. Although he technically passed the field sobriety tests, Bruch exhibited some clues of impairment. While Bruch took more than one preliminary breath test (PBT), the test that he consented to take with Officer Truan yielded a .146 result. Bruch refused to take the Intoxilyzer breath test.
After being arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), Bruch's driving privileges were suspended following an administrative hearing. There was no transcript taken of the administrative hearing, but the handwritten notes of the hearing officer are included in the record on appeal:
"
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
"P.C. [probable cause]—ABC; Walk and Turn, 1 Leg stand; R had a stared look on face, odor of ETOH; R drank 5 hours ago and should be fine.
. . . .
Additionally, under the section titled "Other issues raised," the notes stated:
Bruch filed a petition for review with the district court which provided in relevant part:
The Kansas Department of Revenue (Department) filed an answer alleging as an affirmative defense that the petition failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted because it failed to comply with K.S.A. 77-614(b). Subsequently, the Department filed a motion to dismiss specifying that the petition failed to set forth the mailing address of the petitioner, failed to identify the persons who were parties in the adjudicative proceeding that led to the agency action, failed to identify the agency action at issue or attach a copy of the order of the administrative action, and failed to allege any facts that demonstrate the petitioner is entitled to judicial review.
Bruch responded that he identified the Department in his petition; that the failure to include the address in the petition was a clerical error subject to amendment; that he identified the address of the Department in the summons; that he identified himself, the department's hearing officer, the order, the subject of the order, and why it was improperly issued; and that the only facts that were required for him to establish he is entitled to judicial review under K.S.A. 8-259 are that an administrative hearing order was issued suspending his driving privileges.
The trial de novo before the district court began with the court hearing oral argument concerning the motion to dismiss. The Department argued that the failure to strictly comply with K.S.A. 77-614(b) deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction under Commissioner v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 703 N.E.2d 680 (Ind.App.1998), and Pittsburg State University v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 30 Kan.App.2d 37, 36 P.3d 853 (2001), rev. denied 273 Kan. 1036 (2002). Bruch distinguished those cases because an appeal under the Kansas Implied Consent Law is subject to a de novo review, while the typical appeal under the KJRA considers the facts actually introduced into evidence below and questions whether there was substantial evidence to support the administrative agency's actions. The district court decided to withhold its ruling until the end of the hearing.
Officer Truan was the only witness who testified at the trial. Relevant to this appeal, the officer testified that the device he used for the PBT had been approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE); that he believed that it was over 15 minutes from the time of the stop until the time of the test; and that Bruch was given the required advisories. Bruch's counsel objected to the officer's testimony, contending no foundation was laid that the instrument used to perform the PBT was an approved device in Kansas, that the officer waited 15 minutes to perform the test, or that Bruch gave his knowing, voluntary, intelligent consent to the PBT. Bruch argued that consent to a PBT cannot be implied under State v. Jones, 279 Kan., 71, 106 P.3d 1 (2005), which applies Fourth Amendment requirements regarding illegally obtained evidence to civil proceedings such as this one. The court responded:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, No. 94,033.
...question addressed, even though issue not decided below). In fact, our decision in similar circumstances in Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764, 148 P.3d 538 (2006), makes raising any potentially controlling constitutional issue at the time of the administrative hearing the wise ......
-
Frick v. City of Salina
...the facts"). Even then, the review has been limited to the issues raised before the administrative agency. Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764, 774, 148 P.3d 538 (2006); Angle, 12 Kan.App.2d at 764-65, 758 P.2d An example of a clear expression of a legislative intent to allow add......
-
State Of Kan. v. Shadden
...was supported by evidence that defendant “was unable to satisfactorily complete the field sobriety tests”); Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764, 765, 148 P.3d 538 (2006) (noting that driver technically “passed the field sobriety State v. Martinez, 268 Kan. 21, 24, 988 P.2d 735 (1......
-
Bicknell v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue
...is "limited to the issues raised before the administrative agency." 289 Kan. at 21, 208 P.3d 739 (citing Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue , 282 Kan. 764, 774, 148 P.3d 538 [2006] ; Angle v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue , 12 Kan. App. 2d 756, 764-65, 758 P.2d 226 [1988] ). "Statutes purporting to......
-
The Kansas Judicial Review Act: a Road Map
...and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas, J. Kan. B. Ass'n, June/July 1995, at 22. [7] Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764, 777, 148 P.3d 538 (2006) disapproved of on other grounds by Sloop v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 296 Kan. 13, 290 P3d 555 (2012). [8] Paine, Thomas, Common Sense......
-
The Kansas Judicial Review Act: a Road Map
...and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas, J. Kan. B. Ass'n, June/July 1995, at 22. [7] Bruch v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764, 777, 148 P.3d 538 (2006) disapproved of on other grounds by Sloop v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 296 Kan. 13, 290 P.3d 555 (2012). [8] Paine, Thomas, Common Sens......
-
Appellate Decisions
...petition for judicial review failed to comply with the pleading requirements set forth in Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764, 148 P.3d 538 (2006). ISSUE: Driver's license revocation HELD: Court held the district court generally dismissed Rivera's petition because it failed to co......