Introducing Exa PlacesLearn more
Legal Opinion

State v. Schmidt

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided December 16, 2016No. 112209PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Malone, C.J.:

Following an injury accident in September 2012, Michael Schmidt was arrested on suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). In accordance with the Kansas Implied Consent Law, K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1001, the arresting officer requested that Schmidt submit to a blood test and informed him, as required by the implied consent advisories, that failure to submit to the test constituted a separate crime. Schmidt acquiesced to the test, and the results showed that his blood-alcohol content was above the legal limit. Following the denial of Schmidts motion to suppress…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Arizona v. GantSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  3. Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  4. Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert BernardSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  5. Illinois v. KrullSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. KruseNebraska Supreme Court · 2019
  2. State v. HoerleNebraska Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Commonwealth v. UpdikeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  4. State v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2018
  5. Commonwealth v. Wolfel, K., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API