Printable Format8-1006. Same; submission of other evidence; preservation of samples not required. (a) The provisions of K.S.A. 8-1005, and amendments thereto, shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether or not the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both.
(b) Nothing in this act shall require any samples of blood, breath or urine to be preserved for or furnished to the person for independent testing.
History: L. 1955, ch. 279, § 2; L. 1985, ch. 48, § 8; L. 1985, ch. 50, § 4; L. 1986, ch. 40, § 5; L. 1988, ch. 47, § 16; L. 1994, ch. 319, § 3; May 19.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Statutory presumption not conclusive; rebuttable; construed; conviction upheld. State v. Bailey, 184 Kan. 704, 710, 712, 339 P.2d 45.
2. Driving while drunk; instructions on evidence of intoxication criticized but conviction upheld. City of Wichita v. Depee, 185 Kan. 22, 24, 340 P.2d 924.
3. Purpose of act; constitutional exercise of police power; license revocation upheld. Lee v. State, 187 Kan. 566, 568, 358 P.2d 765.
4. No double jeopardy for DUI prosecution following suspension of driver's license for refusal to take breathalyzer test. State v. Maze, 16 Kan. App. 2d 527, 533, 825 P.2d 1169 (1992).
5. Unlike K.S.A. 8-1567(a)(1), subsection (a)(3) does not limit the introduction of "other competent evidence" to that found in K.S.A. 8-1013(f)(2). State v. Stevens, 285 Kan. 307, 319, 322, 172 P.3d 570 (2007).