State v. Compton, s. 55192
| Decision Date | 10 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | 55233,Nos. 55192,55218 and 55303,s. 55192 |
| Citation | 664 P.2d 1370,233 Kan. 690 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Joe N. COMPTON, Appellee. STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Thomas A. WILLIAMS, Appellee. STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Kelly R. KEENAN, Appellee. STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Jose RAMIREZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
1. There is no duty placed on an arresting officer, making an arrest for the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, to explain to the accused the consequences of a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol chemical test.
2. In a prosecution for driving while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of K.S.A. 8-1567(a), the admissibility into evidence of the accused's refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test is not dependent upon a finding that the refusal to take the test was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.
3. In a prosecution for driving while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of K.S.A. 8-1567(a), the admission into evidence, pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001(c), of the accused's refusal to take a blood alcohol test does not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or Section 10 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Kansas, following South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983).
4. K.S.A. 8-1001(c) is a constitutional enactment.
5. The basic meaning of the separation of powers doctrine is that the whole power of one department should not be exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of either of the other departments.
6. A statute is presumed to be constitutional. All doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before a statute may be stricken down, it must clearly appear the statute violates the constitution.
7. When a statute is challenged under the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, the court must search for a usurpation by one department of the powers of another department on the specific facts and circumstances presented.
8. A usurpation of powers exists when there is a significant interference by one department with operations of another department.
9. In determining whether or not a usurpation of powers exists a court should consider (a) the essential nature of the power being exercised; (b) the degree of control by one department over another; (c) the objective sought to be attained by the legislature; and (d) the practical result of the blending of powers as shown by actual experience over a period of time.
10. K.S.A. 8-1567, prohibiting plea bargaining when entered into for the purpose of permitting a person charged with DUI to avoid the mandatory penalties therefor, is examined and held not to be a sufficient encroachment upon the powers of the prosecutor so as to constitute a violation of the constitutional separation of powers doctrine.
Philip D. Lunt, County Atty., argued the cause and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellant in State v. Compton and State v. Williams.
Richard N. Raleigh, Medicine Lodge, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Compton.
Michael S. Holland, Russell, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Williams.
James D. Hall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Clark V. Owens, Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., were on the brief for appellant in State v. Keenan.
Paul D. Handy, County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellant in State v. Ramirez.
Dennis M. Bahr, Garden City, was on the brief for appellee Ramirez.
The State of Kansas appeals in these drunken driving cases from orders of the trial courts declaring portions of K.S.A. 8-1001 and 8-1567 unconstitutional. The defendants, Joe N. Compton, Thomas A. Williams, Kelly R. Keenan and Jose Ramirez, were each charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in violation of K.S.A. 8-1567. None of the cases has been tried. In Compton and Williams, the State appeals as a matter of right under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(1) from orders finding K.S.A. 8-1001(c) and K.S.A. 8-1567(c), (d) and (e) unconstitutional and dismissing the case. In Keenan, the State brings an interlocutory appeal under K.S.A. 22-3603 from an order suppressing evidence of the results of the blood alcohol test administered to the defendant, based upon a finding that K.S.A. 8-1001(c) is unconstitutional. In Ramirez, the State brings an interlocutory appeal, K.S.A. 22-3603, from an order suppressing evidence of defendant's refusal to take a blood alcohol test, based on the trial court's holding that K.S.A. 8-1001(c) is unconstitutional. Because of the identity of issues, the cases were consolidated for hearing on appeal.
Both K.S.A. 8-1001 and 8-1567 were amended by the legislature in 1982. See L.1982, ch. 144, §§ 3, 5. The 1982 amendments are the versions of these statutes before us in this case. They read in pertinent part as follows:
....
....
We turn first to the issue of the alleged unconstitutionality of K.S.A. 8-1001(c). All of the claims and all of the decisions of the trial courts were premised upon the claim that the admissibility of an accused's refusal to take the test violated his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
At the time the cases were presented to and considered by the trial courts, a similar provision of a South Dakota statute had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alpha Medical Clinic v. Anderson
...the separation of powers. The attorney general is correct that prosecution of crime is an executive function. See State v. Compton, 233 Kan. 690, 698, 664 P.2d 1370 (1983); State, ex rel., v. Rohleder, 208 Kan. 193, 194-95, 490 P.2d 374 (1971). And this court is mindful of its obligation to......
-
Cox v. People
...state constitutional prohibitions against self-incrimination. See Allen v. State, 254 Ga. 433, 330 S.E.2d 588 (1985); State v. Compton, 233 Kan. 690, 664 P.2d 1370 (1983); Connor, 386 N.W.2d 242 (Minn.App.1986); State v. Jackson, 672 P.2d 255 (Mont.1983); State v. Hoenscheid, 374 N.W.2d 128......
-
State v. Favela
...Supp. 8-1909 [overweight truck] no violation of separation of powers)." 248 Kan. at 798-99, 811 P.2d 1163. In State v. Compton, 233 Kan. 690, 664 P.2d 1370 (1983), the statute at issue was K.S.A. 8-1567, which prohibits a prosecutor from plea bargaining a case if the purpose of the plea is ......
-
State v. Baker, 57645
...validity and, before a statute may be stricken down, it must clearly appear the statute violates the constitution. State v. Compton, 233 Kan. 690, 697, 664 P.2d 1370 (1983), citing Leek v. Theis, 217 Kan. 784, 539 P.2d 304 (1975). The burden of proof as to the validity of the statute falls ......