State v. Wycoff
| Decision Date | 26 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 110,393.,110,393. |
| Citation | 367 P.3d 1258 (Mem) |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Darwin Estol WYCOFF, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Brock R. Abbey, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Ellen Mitchell, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief with him for appellant.
Roger D. Struble, of Blackwell & Struble, LLC, of Salina, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
Darwin Estol Wycoff, like the defendant in State v. Ryce, No. 111,698, –––Kan. ––––, ––– P.3d ––––, 2016 WL 756686, this day decided, challenges the constitutionality of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8–1025. In Ryce, we hold that 8–1025 is facially unconstitutional. Based on our decision in Ryce, we affirm the district court's decision to dismiss the charge against Wycoff that alleged a violation of 8–1025.
On an afternoon in December 2012, a Salina Police Department officer noticed a vehicle starting and stopping quickly multiple times, squealing its tires. When the vehicle made an improper turn, the officer initiated a traffic stop.
As the officer approached the driver, who was later identified as Wycoff, the officer noticed the odor of alcohol. Wycoff spoke to the officer with slurred speech, and his eyes were watery. Wycoff's driver's license revealed that he was required to have an ignition interlock device, but the device was not equipped on the vehicle Wycoff was driving. Though the officer asked Wycoff to perform field sobriety tests, Wycoff refused. After being transported to the Saline County Jail under arrest, Wycoff refused to submit to a breath test. The State charged Wycoff with driving under the influence, refusing to submit to an evidentiary test under 8–1025, driving in violation of license restrictions, failure to provide proof of insurance, and turning without signaling.
Wycoff filed a motion to dismiss or suppress evidence, arguing that 8–1025 was unconstitutional. He challenged the statute on numerous grounds, arguing that it violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, and due process requirements. After a hearing on the motion, the district court rejected the majority of Wycoff's claims. But the court did conclude that 8–1025, which criminalized Wycoff's test refusal, was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and also imposed an unconstitutional condition on the privilege to drive. The State dismissed the remaining charges against Wycoff and appealed to this court.
Wycoff essentially raises the same issues as did the defendant in Ryce . In that decision we hold that K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8–1025 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is facially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ryce
...2016 WL 757547 (2016), State v. Nece, 111,401, ––– Kan. ––––, 367 P.3d 1260, 2016 WL 756690 (2016), and State v. Wycoff, No. 110,393, ––– Kan. ––––, 367 P.3d 1258, 2016 WL 756685 (2016), all of which are being decided this day. ANALYSIS On appeal, the State argues it did not violate Ryce's ......
-
State v. Corey
...to apply the appropriate legal standard when analyzing the injustice prong entitles Corey to a new trial. See State v. Wycoff , 303 Kan. 885, 886, 367 P.3d 1258 (2016) (appellate court can affirm district court if it was right for the wrong reason).Prosecutorial MisconductCorey next argues ......
-
State v. Ryce
...we filed our decision in Ryce I , we also filed decisions in State v. Wilson , 303 Kan. 973, 368 P.3d 1086 (2016), and State v. Wycoff , 303 Kan. 885, 367 P.3d 1258 (2016). In both Wilson and Wycoff , we relied on our analysis in Ryce I and concluded the defendants in those cases could not ......
-
Reorganized FLI, Inc. v. Williams Cos.
... ... II. Background On August 8, 2005, Farmland filed an action in Kansas state court alleging, inter 1 F.4th 1218 alia , that Appellants engaged in anti-competitive conduct by conspiring to manipulate the price of natural ... ...