In Douglas County, a man was arrested on suspicion of DUI, and within two hours after the arrest, he blew .08 during the test -- but he was able to beat the rap on appeal by raising questions about reasonable doubt. The state Supreme Court is getting involved now, the Journal-World reports.
« Woman starts daycare to force sex offenders from her neighborhood | Main | Scam artists posing as Water Department in south KC »
Thursday, October 22, 2009
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b1b869e20120a66b899e970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A new challenge to DUI law in Kansas?:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


As much as I hate drunk drivers........
valid? maybe..........
point, and counter point.......the guys got a good attorney to think of this.
Posted by: clive | Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 01:56 PM
It still sucks though.
Posted by: jeano | Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Let's see: He should be convicted even though the machine might have been wrong. What part of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is so hard to understand, fellas?
Damn, prosecutors hate it when a judge does his job and rules against them -- and that pesky "beyond a reasonable doubt" deal can be a real hassle for the smooth "administration of justice".
Stalin had it so much easier than these poor prosecutors.
Posted by: KC Cicero | Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 05:18 PM
What could possibly "suck" about this? According to the article, the machine, when tested prior to the man's arrest had been demonstrating inconsistent results. The man blows exactly a .08 which is precisely the threshold at which intoxication is presumed under KS law.
The machine was demonstrably inaccurate in the tests casting reasonable doubt that his actual bac was at or above the threshold.
That's not complicated logic. Or perhaps it "sucks" that a judge finally made the prosecution actually meet their burden in a dui case?
You should also note that, given sufficient evidence of intoxication, the prosecution can obtain a conviction for dui without the benefit of the breathalyzer. Obviously, the facts in this case weren't sufficient to do that.
Kudos to Judge for doing his job and upholding the rule of law vs. kowtowing to MADD and uninformed public opinion.
Posted by: sickoftheidiots | Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 08:22 PM
It sucks when the prosecution gets used to failing to meet the necessary burden of proof.
Posted by: Tom K | Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 08:33 PM
.08? Is that like two beers in the nanny state? They use these DUI laws to slowly chip away at the Bill of Rights. That's why the US has turned into the very police state our grandparents fought to no become.
Good job MADD and all you other women based groups.
Posted by: 1020 | Friday, October 23, 2009 at 02:22 AM