FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : Monday, July 28, 2014
CONTACT: Sara Rabern (605)773-3215
South Dakota Supreme Court Rules that the U.S. Supreme Court McNeely Decision Does Not
Effect Previous Drunk Driving Cases in South Dakota
PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced that the South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled in State v. Donovan Craig Siers that the United States Supreme Court case of McNeely v. Missouri regarding warrantless blood draws will not have retroactive application or effect on previous drunk driving cases in South Dakota.
While the Siers decision addresses previous convictions, it is anticipated that the South Dakota Supreme Court will ultimately address what effect, if any, the McNeely decision may have on the state’s implied consent law and DUI cases that occurred after the McNeely decision. The case that is expected to ultimately determine McNeely’s application is State v. Fiero. It is further anticipated that the State’s DUI implied consent law and its effect upon public safety may further necessitate discussion this upcoming legislative session.
In addition, the South Dakota Supreme Court adopted a new rule consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard in Teague v. Lane for determining whether a case should be applied retroactively. The Court said that “by applying the Teague test for retroactivity, this Court can better address concerns for finality, consistency and uniformity- all by way of a simpler, more straightforward test. Moving forward, we therefore adopt the Teague rule.”
In Teague v. Lane, the United States Supreme Court held that new rules of criminal procedure do not apply retroactively to cases which had become final on direct review at the time the new rule was decided. Under Teague, these three criteria are examined: the purpose of the decision, reliance on the prior rule of law and the effect upon the administration of justice.