S.D. Supreme Court Accepts State’s Request to Determine Constitutionality of Implied Consent Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : Tuesday, January 14, 2014
CONTACT: Sara Rabern (605) 773-3215
South Dakota Supreme Court Accepts State’s Request to Determine Constitutionality of
South Dakota’s Implied Consent Law for DUI Enforcement
PIERRE, S.D - Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that the South Dakota Supreme Court has granted the State’s petition for intermediate appeal from an order suppressing a blood test in a drunk driving case. The granting of an intermediate appeal is discretionary. A magistrate judge found that the United States Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely required the warrantless blood draw conducted under the State’s implied consent law to be suppressed or excluded. Several other decisions in South Dakota have denied a Defendant’s motion to suppress or exclude the evidence of a blood sample and test results under South Dakota’s Implied Consent law.
“The Attorney General’s Office petitioned the South Dakota Supreme Court to address this important constitutional and public safety issue, and to ensure that our criminal laws are applied consistently throughout South Dakota,” stated Attorney General Jackley.
On April 17, 2013, a divided United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Missouri v. McNeely concluding that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant. The issue to be addressed by South Dakota’s Supreme Court is what extent the McNeely decision affects South Dakota’s requirement that any person who operates a vehicle is considered to have given consent to the withdrawal of blood and chemical analysis of the person’s blood or breath to determine the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood.