Opinion ID: 2342088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rescission of a test refusal based on a deficient breath sample

Text: On the date of May's arrest, K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1001( l ) provided that the [f]ailure of a person to provide an adequate breath sample or samples as directed shall constitute a refusal unless the person shows that the failure was due to physical inability caused by a medical condition unrelated to any ingested alcohol or drugs. Although May had sustained a head injury in the accident, the Court of Appeals noted the absence of any evidence that the head injury caused May to be unable to provide a sufficient volume of breath. To the contrary, the record disclosed that, after the head injury, May successfully completed the PBT, which required the same amount of exertion and breath as the Intoxilyzer 8000. Accordingly, May's performance on the Intoxilyzer 8000 constituted a test refusal, rather than a test failure. May, 2009 WL 5206248, at -4 (citing Call v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 17 Kan.App.2d 79, 83, 831 P.2d 970, rev. denied 251 Kan. 937 [1992]). Ordinarily, the fact that a person refused a breath test is admissible evidence at the person's DUI trial. K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1001(f)(8). Nevertheless, over a quarter-century ago, in Standish, this court recognized that a driver's initial refusal to take a breath test may be changed or rescinded, and if rescinded in accordance with the following rules, cures the prior refusal. 235 Kan. at 902, 683 P.2d 1276. The opinion described the rules as follows: To be effective, the subsequent consent must be made: (1) within a very short and reasonable time after the prior first refusal; (2) when a test administered upon the subsequent consent would still be accurate; (3) when testing equipment is still readily available; (4) when honoring the request will result in no substantial inconvenience or expense to the police; and (5) when the individual requesting the test has been in the custody of the arresting officer and under observation for the whole time since arrest. 235 Kan. at 902-03, 683 P.2d 1276. The Court of Appeals found that substantial competent evidence existed to support the district court's determination that May had effectively rescinded her initial test refusal under the five Standish factors. Specifically, the panel found sufficient evidentiary support for the following facts: (1) May asked to retake the breath test immediately after the completion of the test resulting in the deficient sample; (2) [the trooper] could have prepared a new breath test on the Intoxilyzer 8000 within 5 minutes; (3) May was right next to the Intoxilyzer 8000 when she requested the new test; (4) administering a new test would not have been a major hardship or inconvenience for [the trooper]; and (5) at the time of her request, May had continually been in [the trooper's] custody and presence. May, 2009 WL 5206248, at . In its petition for review, the State does not argue that the evidence fails to support rescission under the Standish factors. Rather, the State takes the tack that [t]he Court of Appeals erred in relying on Standish.  Launching a multi-front attack, the State suggests that the legislature may have intended to overrule Standish with its 1986 amendment to K.S.A. 8-1001(f); that a failure to provide an adequate breath sample is treated differently than an actual refusal to take a test because it is deemed a refusal as a matter of law; and that Kansas should abandon its adherence to the minority view and join the majority of courts which have adopted a bright line rule that an initial refusal to submit to testing cannot be cured or nullified by a subsequent consent to be tested. None of the State's arguments clear the launch pad. The State begins by pointing to the 1986 amendment to K.S.A. 8-1001 which added the language declaring that a failure to provide an adequate breath sample as directed shall constitute a test refusal unless the person performing the test is incapable of providing an adequate sample due to a medical condition other than intoxication. L. 1986, ch. 40, sec. 2, (amending K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 8-1001[f]). The State's apparent contention is that the legislature's inclusion of the medical condition exception manifested an intent to exclude any exception based on rescission. That argument is unavailing for more than one reason. First, the State attempts to compare apples to oranges by improperly equating an exception to the statutory definition of test refusal with an after-the-fact cure of a constructive test refusal. If the medical condition exception referred to in K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1001( l ) is met, then by statutory definition a test refusal has not occurred. Obviously, without a test refusal, there would be none of the consequences associated with a test refusal and there would be no need to cure the nonexistent test refusal via rescission. In other words, rescission cures a test refusal; it does not define when a test refusal has initially occurred. Therefore, the legislature's inclusion of the medical condition exception in its K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1001( l ) definition of a test refusal had absolutely no effect on Standish 's holding regarding the right to rescind an initial test refusal by subsequent consent. Further, Standish specifically addressed the issue of constructive refusals as a matter of law. It clarified that when a law enforcement officer asks a driver to take a breath test, [a] conditional response such as, `I want to talk to my attorney (or parent or relative or friend or some other third person) first,' is not a consent to take the test. It is a refusal. 235 Kan. at 903, 683 P.2d 1276. The 1986 amendment appears to merely expand beyond Standish the circumstances whereby a driver will be deemed, as a matter of law, to have refused to submit to the breath test. Conspicuously absent from the statutory language is any reference to rescission, and we cannot divine an obtuse intent to abolish Standish 's right of rescission hidden in the statutory language that was employed. The State also excises part of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1001(h) to support its argument that a test refusal rescission is legislatively prohibited. The out-of-context language cited is that additional testing shall not be given if a person has refused to submit to and complete a requested test. But the remaining portion of the provision speaks to an exception in the circumstance where the officer has probable cause to believe that a person under the influence has operated a vehicle in such a manner as to have caused death or serious injury to another person. K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1001(h). Clearly, the provision means that an officer cannot force a person to submit to testing without his or her consent, unless that person has been involved in a very serious accident. It does not prohibit a subsequent consensual test. In addition to its statutory arguments, the State urges us to find relevance in the distinction between an express, outright refusal to take a test and an action which is deemed to be a test refusal as a matter of law. It was successful in convincing the Court of Appeals' dissent that our holdings in Standish and Gray were intended to apply only to an express, outright refusal to take the test. See May, 2009 WL 5206248, at . But as our earlier recitation from Standish points out, that case does not support the State's factual distinction argument. Standish gave what could be described as a conditional consent, i.e., he wanted to talk to his attorney before taking the test. Standish found that a conditional response is deemed to be a refusal as a matter of law, which is akin to finding an inadequate sample is a refusal as a matter of law. Moreover, Standish 's rationale for permitting rescission was to encourage the administration of the breath test. 235 Kan. at 902, 683 P.2d 1276. That rationale logically should apply equally to an actual refusal to blow into a machine and a constructive refusal for not blowing hard enough into the machine. If we are going to encourage a person to change his or her mind about whether to blow into the Intoxilyzer, we should likewise encourage a person to change his or her mind about whether to properly blow into the Intoxilyzer. The State's argument that the two situations are distinguishable in light of the reason for the rescission rule is simply unpersuasive. The State also urges us to join the Court of Appeals' dissent in accepting the slippery slope argument that applying the right of rescission to inadequate breath sample cases would encourage and reward deceptiveness. In other words, motorists could rescind not simply an initial refusal to submit to testing, as in Gray and Standish, but the tests themselves, all the while delaying a completed test as their alcohol concentration level would presumably drop. May, 2009 WL 5206248, at . We suspect that the fear of driver gamesmanship is not the product of a recent epiphany. In Gray, we specifically noted that the arresting officer's impression was that Gray was trying to drag out the process in order to obtain a better result. 270 Kan. at 795, 18 P.3d 962. Nevertheless, we upheld the rescission. Moreover, one could reasonably infer that, in developing its five factors for rescission, the Standish court contemplated the possibility that a motorist might try to use the right of rescission to manipulate the test result. The first factor speaks to the subsequent consent being within a very short and reasonable time after the prior first refusal. (Emphasis added.) 235 Kan. at 903, 683 P.2d 1276. That factor alone refutes the State's argument that allowing rescission in this case will lead to motorists making repeated inadequate attempts at the breath test while they sober up. The prophylactic nature of the requisite Standish factors provide adequate protection against a motorist's abuse of the right of rescission. To conclude, we find that the right to cure a test refusal by rescission in accordance with the Standish factors is available to a person who is deemed to have refused testing by providing an inadequate breath sample pursuant to K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1001( l ). Here, the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's findings that May's subsequent consent to testing met all five Standish factors and cured the initial test refusal. Accordingly, the district court was correct to prohibit any testimony that May had refused to submit to a breath test.