Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Wichita v. Molitor

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 30, 2015No. 104940Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBiles, J.

I agree with the portion of the majority’s opinion holding it was error to allow the State to rely on the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test results to establish reasonable suspicion for the officer’s request for a preliminaiy breath test (PBT) because the State has not established the test’s reliability as required by State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313, 836 P.2d 1110 (1992). But I disagree with what the majority characterizes as a harmless error analysis in which the majority concludes the remaining evidence failed to independently establish the required reasonable suspicion to satisfy K.S.A.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. WitteSupreme Court of Kansas · 1992
  2. State v. MooreSupreme Court of Kansas · 2007
  3. State v. PollmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
  4. State v. MorlockSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  5. Smith v. Kansas Dept. of RevenueSupreme Court of Kansas · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API