Interlock, impoundment, but not both

Carol Longenecker Schmidt won in State v. McGuckin, No. 106,208 (Kan. App. July 20, 2012) (unpublished), vacating a Sedgwick County DUI sentence in part.  The state charged Mr. McGuckin with a DUI. At sentencing, the district court ordered that Mr. McGuckin’s vehicles be impounded and simultaneously required him to drive only cars equipped with ignition interlock devices. 

The COA held that K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 8-1567(1)(1) allows for one or the other:

There is no mistaking the meaning of the "either … or" phrasing of the sentencing options. The phrase clearly conveys that the district court may impose use of an interlock device or require impoundment of vehicles but not both. 

Because the district court erred, and Mr. McGuckin had already been subject to the full measure of the impoundment punishment, the COA vacated the remainder of the ignition interlock punishment.

[Update:  the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on August 23, 2012.]