COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. MARY J. LOPEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AMENDED: December 2, 1999
RENDERED: OCTOBER 21, 1999
TO BE PUBLISHED
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
MOVANT
CERTIFICATION OF THE LAW
KENTON DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 98-T-21 109
V.
MARY J. LOPEZ
RESPONDENT
OPINION OF,THE COURT BY JUSTICE WINTERSHEIMER
CERTIFYING THE LAW
The question presented for certification in this matter is framed by the county
attorney as whether Combs v. Commonwealth, Ky., 965 S.W.2d 161 (1998), is
intended to be a judicial modification of the implied consent statute, KRS 189A.103,
thereby overruling Beach v. Commonwealth, Ky., 927 S.W.2d 826 (1996),
so as to
limit the admissibility of blood test results in DUI cases to only those cases involving
death or physical injury.
The position of the Commonwealth is that the plain language holding of
Combs, supra, regarding the inadmissibility of blood test results in the prosecution of
a DUI charge is that that holding is limited to instances contemplated in KRS
189A. 105 where blood test results are obtained pursuant to a warrant in a DUI case
not involving physical injury or death.
In this case, Lopez was before the Kenton District Court, First Division,
charged with driving under the influence. She expressly consented and submitted to
a breath alcohol test after having been read the implied consent warning. KRS
189A.105. An inadequate breath sample resulted in the officer requesting Lopez to
submit to a blood test which she expressly consented to provide. The results of the
blood test indicated that her blood alcohol content was 0.15 grams/l00 ml. On the
morning of trial, her counsel moved to suppress the blood alcohol results citing
Combs, D e s p ast controlling authority.m e n t
supra, i e t h e a r g u
o f
t h e
C o m m o n w e a l t h
to the contrary, the Kenton District Court judge found that the holding in Combs and
specifically, part of the last paragraph, wherein it was stated:
It is the holding of this Court that the admission of the results of
a blood test in a DUI case not involving death or physical injury
is improper.
required the suppression of the blood alcohol results.
KRS 189A. 103 governs the determination of whether an individual is driving a
vehicle under the influence. The General Assembly has stated that a person is
deemed to consent to one or more or any combination of blood, breath or urine tests.
The use of the blood test evidence in prosecuting DUI cases has been recognized
and approved in Beach, wherein this Court resolved the issue of whether or not a
breath test must first be administered before collecting and testing blood evidence in
DUI cases. The problem presented now is that part of the last paragraph of Combs
appears to be in contradiction to the decision in Beach in that all blood tests collected
in furtherance of a DUI prosecution pursuant to KRS 189A.103,
-2-
which do not
I
l
involve death or injury are inadmissible as a matter of law. The interpretation placed
upon the language in Combs would preclude the best evidence from being presented
to the trier of fact in many instances where breath alcohol or urine evidence is
subordinate to blood result evidence.
We must first admit that the language quoted from part of the last paragraph of
Combs arguably conflicts with the totality of the opinion rendered in Combs. Combs
is limited to those situations where a search warrant was necessary to obtain blood
evidence in order to prosecute a DUI case not involving injury or death. This analysis
is consistent with a comprehensive review of the context of the entire case in Combs,
which addressed the constitutional issue of the legislative restriction upon the
issuance of a search warrant in a DUI case. Therefore, the language in Combs,
which states:
It is the holding of this Court that the admission of the results of
a blood test in a DUI case not involving death or physical injury
is improper.
does not reflect the true intent of the total Opinion. Consequently, the above quoted
language does not control a situation where a defendant expressly consents to a
blood alcohol test in compliance with KRS 189A.103. The language in Combs is
incomplete and therefore must be clarified. The holding in Combs relates to those
cases prosecuted pursuant to KRS 189A.105
where blood alcohol evidence is
obtained pursuant to a search warrant in a DUI case not involving physical injury or
death.
The law is so certified.
All concur.
-3-
COUNSEL FOR MOVANT:
A.B. Chandler III
Attorney General
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601
Garry L. Edmondson
Kenton County Attorney
James T. Redwine
Assistant County Attorney
Christopher S. Nordloh
Assistant County Attorney
303 Court Street, Room 307
Covington, KY 41011
COUNSEL
FOR
RESPONDENT:
F. Dennis Alerding
303 Greenup Street, Suite 300
Covington, KY 41011
-4-
%qmme thwt af T!htuck~
99-SC-0215CL
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
MOVANT
CERTIFICATION OF THE LAW
KENTON DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 98-T-21 109
V.
MARY J. LOPEZ
RESPONDENT
ORDER
AMENDING
The opinion in the above-styled appeal, rendered
October
21,
1999, is hereby amended to the extent that page 1 and
page 2 have been replaced with amended pages, attached hereto, in
order to correct typographical errors.
ENTERED:
December
2,
1999.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.