Prosecutors and police departments spent part of Friday combing through an 86-page ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court that found a state law criminally punishing drivers who refuse a sobriety test is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

Johnson County District Attorney Stephen Howe, a proponent of the now-defunct law, said prosecutors throughout Kansas believe it will have a large impact.

"It’s a big deal to prosecutors and law enforcement throughout the state," Howe said.

Howe said he and his staff are reviewing the ruling and may need to immediately halt prosecutions for refusal to submit blood-alcohol tests.

Lt. Colleen Stuart with the Topeka Police Department said her agency’s lawyers are also processing Friday’s ruling.

"Information will be provided to our officers that the particular statute regarding refusal would be unenforceable at this time," Stuart said.

Attorney General Derek Schmidt said his office is printing new forms for law enforcement officers to ensure they are informing citizens of their newfound rights.

"We are making the modified forms available immediately so DUI enforcement can continue uninterrupted," Schmidt said.

Topeka defense attorney Doug Wells, who defends DUI cases, said he was unsurprised by the ruling.

"What the Supreme Court did is just enforce the Constitution," he said. "It’s logical and it makes sense."

Wells estimates fewer than 10 percent of DUI cases involve a refusal charge.

"My thinking is the statute was just overreaching," he said. "What they tried to do is create an easy-to-prosecute crime when the real crime is driving when you shouldn’t be driving."

Paul Burmaster, a criminal defense attorney in Overland Park, called the ruling "a big victory for the Fourth Amendment" but said it will affect a small number of DUI cases.

In 2012, the state amended its statutes on driving under the influence, adding a provision stating that refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol content test is a separate crime with punishments comparable to those for DUI.

Perhaps anticipating a legal challenge, the statute’s authors included a passage stating "the opportunity to consent to or refuse a test is not a constitutional right."

Because protection from unreasonable search and seizure can be voluntarily surrendered by defendants, the state of Kansas argued the law was constitutional. Drivers have surrendered their rights by driving on Kansas roads, the state argued.

On Friday, the court disagreed with that argument in a 6-1 decision.

"In essence, the State’s reasons are not good enough, and its law not precise enough, to encroach on the fundamental liberty interest in avoiding an unreasonable search," wrote Justice Marla Luckert in the majority opinion.

Civil penalties for refusing a blood-alcohol test, such as the loss of a driver’s license, weren’t affected by Friday’s ruling and remain in effect.

"The ultimate question is whether, when a driver exercises the constitutional right to withdraw consent, Kansas may criminally punish the individual for this choice under the criminal refusal statute. We conclude it cannot," Luckert wrote.

The law was being challenged by David Lee Ryce, who was observed driving down a Sedgwick County street in reverse on Dec. 9, 2012.

After smelling alcohol and seeing Ryce’s bloodshot eyes, a deputy asked him to undergo field sobriety tests. Ryce complied and was arrested.

At the county jail, Ryce refused to submit to a breath test. He was charged with refusing to submit to an alcohol test but challenged the law’s constitutionality.

A district court agreed with Ryce, throwing the charge out. On Friday, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling.

"The Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy, and thus the rule against unreasonable searches and seizures, is enforceable against the states and must be upheld by federal and state courts alike," Luckert wrote.

Justice Caleb Stegall, the court’s newest member and arguably its most conservative, dissented from the other six justices.

"By making this case about consent, the majority effectively looks at this appeal through the wrong end of the telescope and ends up with a myopic interpretation of (the statute)," Stegall wrote.

Stegall argued the law isn’t wholly unconstitutional and should instead be applied on a case-by-case basis. Stegall also argued the court inappropriately encroached on the powers of the Legislature.

"Today’s decision has undermined the ‘basic democratic function’ of our avoidance doctrine which functions to maintain, insofar as is possible, ‘the policy choices that elected representatives have made,’" Stegall wrote.

In accordance with the Ryce opinion, the high court also ruled in favor of three other defendants challenging the same law Friday. The office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said it hasn’t decided whether it will appeal the rulings to federal court.

"Our office is reviewing the Ryce ruling, together with the three other implied consent rulings issued today," said Jennifer Rapp, a spokeswoman for the attorney general.

In a Shawnee County case decided by the Ryce ruling, defendant Derick Wilson was stopped by a Shawnee County sheriff’s deputy in March 2013. Wilson admitted he had been drinking and showed signs of inebriation during a field sobriety test but refused a breath test.

A deputy obtained a warrant to test Wilson’s blood for alcohol. The defendant was held down by deputies and blood was drawn, showing he had a blood-alcohol count of 0.18.

A district court determined Wilson’s due process rights enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. The district court went further than the Supreme Court did Friday, determining Wilson’s Fifth Amendment rights to protection from self-incrimination were also violated.

Noting its ruling differed from the district court’s, the Supreme Court nonetheless affirmed the lower court ruling dismissing the charge against Wilson in a 6-1 ruling. As he did in the Ryce opinion, Stegall dissented.

In another drunken driving case decided by the court Friday, the defendant, Gregory Nece, agreed to a sobriety test after being told he could be charged with a crime of refusing to submit to a test.

The Supreme Court determined the warning is no longer applicable because the law the officers warned of has been ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, it agreed with a district court ruling to suppress Nece’s breath-alcohol test results. The ruling was unanimous, 7-0.

Thirteen states criminally punish people for refusing to take sobriety tests, a constitutionally dubious matter that could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court this year.

"Clearly, there is a difference of opinion between the states on whether it’s lawful," said Howe, the Johnson County district attorney. "Because most of the states that have these laws found they are constitutional."

The nation’s high court has agreed to hear three cases — two from North Dakota and one from Minnesota — delving into the constitutionality of breath and blood tests for alcohol. Oral arguments in the case haven’t yet been scheduled.

"I still remain confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will find these laws are lawful," Howe said.