Court Opinion

ID: 9677291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:48:28.350308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:54.983702
License: Public Domain

WINE, Judge,
Concurring:
While I concur with the majority opinion that Veltrop lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of KRS 189A.010(2), it is apparent the Kentucky Supreme Court has questioned the constitutionality of this provision. See Lopez v. Commonwealth, 173 S.W.3d 905, 907 (Ky.2005). It would appear from a plain reading of KRS 189A.010(2), the only party which may have standing to challenge this subsection would be the County Attorney or Commonwealth Attorney should a trial court grant a motion to suppress results obtained from a test more than two hours after the driver is stopped. The prosecution might well argue that the rules addressing admissibility, relevance and expert testimony have been superseded by the legislative enactment under KRS 189A.010(2).