 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Buchholz8/11/1999
South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from the Third Judicial Circuit, Beadle County, SD Hon. Eugene L. Martin, Judge
Affirmed
Considered on Briefs Apr 26, 1999; Reassigned Jun 22, 1999 Opinion Filed Aug 11, 1999
[ ] Kyle Louise Buchholz appeals from her conviction of possession of controlled substance in violation of SDCL 22-42-5. () We affirm.
FACTS
[ ] Kyle Buchholz was returning home to Redfield, South Dakota, at approximately 12:30 in the afternoon of March 16, 1998, after attending a weekend foosball tournament in Huron, South Dakota. The South Dakota Highway Patrol had set up a vehicle safety checkpoint along the highway Buchholz was traveling. As Buchholz approached the checkpoint, the highway patrol officer noticed a headlight was not working on the car she was driving. When Buchholz reached the safety checkpoint, the officer approached, asked for a driver's license and informed her a headlight was not working on the vehicle.
[ ] As Buchholz did not have her driver's license with her, the officer asked her to pull over and have a seat in his patrol vehicle. Once Buchholz was seated in the car, the officer ran her identification and asked her where she was coming from. Buchholz stated she had been at a foosball tournament in Huron.
[ ] The officer wrote Buchholz a warning ticket. As the two were walking back to Buchholz's car, the officer asked her if she was transporting drugs. Buchholz replied no. The officer then asked if he could search her vehicle and she consented. The officer located a fanny pack, and, upon opening it, methamphetamine was found along with various drug paraphernalia. The search continued and an empty vial believed to have contained methamphetamine was found in another bag. Field tests revealed the substances were methamphetamine.
[ ] Buchholz was placed under arrest for possession of controlled substances and taken to the Huron Regional Correction Center. Buchholz was booked and asked to provide a urine sample. She initially refused, however after being threatened with catheterization, she provided a urine sample. The sample tested positive for methamphetamine.
[ ] Prior to trial, defense counsel made a motion to suppress the results of the urine test. The trial court denied the motion. Defense counsel made two other motions, one for specific discovery of a search warrant affidavit authorizing the search of a Huron hotel during the foosball tournament and another for appointment of an expert witness on fingerprints. The trial court denied both these motions.
[ ] Buchholz was subsequently convicted of possession of a controlled substance (SDCL 22-42-5) and sentenced to five years in the South Dakota Women's Prison.
[ ] Buchholz appeals, arguing:
1. Whether the seizure of Buchholz's urine violated her constitutional rights.
2. Whether specific discovery of a search warrant affidavit should have been granted.
3. Whether a fingerprint expert should have been appointed.
4. Whether there was sufficient admissible evidence to support a finding of guilt.
5. Whether the sentence imposed violated Buchholz's constitutional rights.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] A trial court's findings of fact used to support or deny a motion to suppress are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Anderson, 1996 SD 59, 8, 548 NW2d 40, 42; State v. Stetter, 513 NW2d 87, 91 (SD 1994); State v. Corder, 460 NW2d 733, 736 (SD 1990). "This court's function under the clearly erroneous standard is to determine whether the decision of the lower court lacks the sup
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|