Casper v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue

• Decision Date: 14 June 2019
• Docket Number: No. 115,352,115,352
• Citation: 442 P.3d 1038
• Parties: Kelly CASPER, Appellee, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

442 P.3d 1038

Kelly CASPER, Appellee,
v.
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant.

No. 115,352

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019.

Adam D. King, of Legal Services Bureau, Kansas Department of Revenue, argued the cause, and J. Brian Cox, of the same office, was on the briefs for appellant.

Jonathan W. McConnell, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Rosen, J.:

442 P.3d 1039

The Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) suspended Kelly Casper's driving privileges based on her arrest and refusal to take a blood alcohol test. She appealed to district court, where the judge held that she met her burden of proving both that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe that she was driving while impaired and lacked probable cause to arrest her. KDOR appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed, holding that the record on appeal supported an opposite conclusion. We granted Casper's petition for review and now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals panel.

FACTS

According to Casper's testimony before the district court, on October 25, 2013, she was visiting family in Wichita, Kansas, and had a glass of wine at around 5:30 in the afternoon. A couple of hours later, she took some sips of alcoholic beverages at a friend's house in order to taste-test the drinks for an upcoming party. At around midnight, she drove away from her friend's house and, when making a right turn, turned into the left travel lane instead of the lane nearest her turn lane.

Officer Steven Thornton of the Wichita Police Department witnessed the wide turn, which, while a relatively common type of turn, is a traffic infraction. He followed Casper's car for a while and did not observe any other traffic infractions. He saw no driving indicators that the operator was impaired. He turned on his emergency blinking lights and followed her as she signaled, pulled over into the right lane, and then turned onto a side street. At the same time, a video recording of the encounter was commenced, which was later entered into evidence.

Thornton asked Casper if she had been drinking, and she said yes. He then asked her to get out of the car and perform a couple of field sobriety tests. According to Thornton's testimony in district court, Casper's eyes were not bloodshot, and her statements were, for the most part, clear and concise. Thornton testified that Casper was initially "fine," but, over the course of several tests, she "became a tad bit uncooperative" and "a little argumentative." He asked her to perform three field sobriety tests: a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, a walk-and-turn test, and a balance-on-one-foot test. In his estimation, she did not perform these tests satisfactorily, and he placed her under arrest. She subsequently refused to take a breathalyzer test.

Thornton issued Casper a notice of suspension for refusing to take a blood alcohol test. Casper timely requested an administrative hearing. The KDOR Division of Vehicles conducted an administrative hearing and, affirming the administrative action suspending her license, concluded that law enforcement had reasonable grounds to believe that Casper was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and was lawfully in custody.

442 P.3d 1040

Casper filed a timely petition for review with the Sedgwick County District Court. On two separate hearing dates, the district court heard the testimony of Thornton and Casper and viewed the video recordings of the stop and subsequent events. After hearing the witnesses and arguments by counsel, the district court announced from the bench its conclusion that Casper had met her burden of proving both a lack of reasonable grounds for believing that she was driving while impaired and a lack of probable cause to support a lawful arrest. The court announced extensive findings explaining the basis of its decision.

KDOR filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, reviewing the testimony and exhibits and essentially holding that the totality of the circumstances favored KDOR's position, not Casper's. Casper v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue , No. 115352, 2016 WL 6024622 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion).

ANALYSIS

On review of the Court of Appeals decision and the district court order, we are tasked with ascertaining whether substantial competent evidence in the record supported the district court's factual findings and whether the conclusion derived from those findings is legally correct. We adopt the reviewing standard set out in Poteet v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue , 43 Kan. App. 2d 412, 415, 233 P.3d 286 (2010) : The determination of whether an officer has reasonable grounds for a particular action involves a mixed question of law and fact, and appellate courts review the ultimate legal conclusion—whether reasonable grounds existed—independently, while deferring to the district court's factual findings. See also State v. Johnson , 297 Kan. 210, 221, 301 P.3d 287 (2013) ("Whether reasonable grounds exist to believe a person has been operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is a question of law."); Swank v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue , 294 Kan. 871, 881, 281 P.3d 135 (2012) (appellate courts generally review district court decisions in driver's license suspension cases to determine whether supported by substantial competent evidence).

It is difficult to cleanly differentiate the two components in a case such as this. Factual findings are intertwined with judging the reasonableness of the officer's actions. As a consequence, the court must view the two in combination, examining the totality of the factual circumstances. See, e.g., Sloop v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue , 296 Kan. 13, 23, 290 P.3d 555 (2012) (probable cause to execute a warrantless arrest is subject to totality of circumstances test).

Here, Casper was unwilling to submit to a breath test. If a driver refuses to take a breath test, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1002(a)(1) directs the Kansas Department of Revenue Division of Vehicles to suspend a person's driving privileges when the following four conditions are met:

"(A) There existed reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ...;

"(B) the person had been placed under arrest, was in custody or had been involved in a vehicle accident or collision;

"(C) a law enforcement officer had presented the person with the oral and written notice required by K.S.A. 8-1001, and amendments thereto; and

"(D) the person refused to submit to and complete a test as requested by a law enforcement officer."

K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1020(a) provides that "[a]ny licensee served with an officer's certification and notice of suspension [for failing or refusing a breath test], may request an administrative hearing." K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1020(h)(1) explains that the scope of review at that hearing is limited to whether the four conditions outlined in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1002 have been met. Each of those four conditions is also within the purview of the district court when it reviews the decision from the administrative hearing. Sloop, 296 Kan. at 17, 290 P.3d 555.

Our caselaw suggests the arrest in subsection B must be a lawful arrest in order to satisfy that element. In Sloop , 296 Kan. at 19, 290 P.3d 555, we considered

442 P.3d 1041

K.S.A. 8-1001, which sets out the conditions under which a law enforcement officer has the authority to request a test of a person's blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance to determine the presence of alcohol and drugs. Two conditions must be met. One of those is that "[t]he person has been arrested or otherwise taken into custody for any violation of any state statute, county resolution or city ordinance." K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1001(b)(1)(A).

We held that, in order for this element to be satisfied, the person had to be under lawful arrest, and, for the arrest to be lawful, the officer had to have probable cause to make it. The court based this holding on the plain language of the statute and implied that the same plain language analysis applied to the requirement in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1020(h)(1)(B). Sloop , 296 Kan. at 19, 20, 290 P.3d 555. The analysis in the present case therefore proceeds from an understanding that an arrest must be lawful in order for the second element of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1002 (or K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1001 [b][1] ) to be satisfied.

The district court here determined both that reasonable grounds did not exist for...