 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Buchholz8/11/1999
fact or of discretion, and, as such, is fully reviewable de novo, with no presumption attach to the determination of the circuit court.'" State v. Zachadoni, 466 NW2d 624, 630 (SD 1991) (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Byrd, 398 NW2d 747, 749 (SD 1986)). Buchholz was arrested for possession of controlled substances (SDCL 22-42-5). The arresting officer observed nothing which indicated that Buchholz had ingested or was under the influence of any substances. The officer issued a warning ticket for the broken headlight. It goes without saying that if the officer thought she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, he would certainly have so charged her. Instead, the officer's reason for testing Buchholz for drug use was simply because she was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. On direct examination, the officer testified:
Q: "And when you arrest somebody for methamphetamine, do you usually have them take a urine test?"
A: "Yes."
This testimony reeks of law enforcement conducting a search as part of "standard procedure" with no facts to support the search. This same type of search was found unconstitutional in State v. Shearer, 1996 SD 52, § 20, 548 NW2d 792, 797. Under the facts of this case, there simply was no probable cause or clear indication that a urine sample would provide evidence of drug use. This is not a case where defendant was arrested for being under the influence of any substances. Therefore, the search obtaining the urine sample violated Buchholz's rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
[ ] In addition to the lack of probable cause, exigent circumstances to excuse the necessity of obtaining a warrant did not exist. In Schmerber, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of obtaining a search warrant prior to obtaining a blood sample:
Search warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings, and absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusion into the human body are concerned. The requirement that a warrant be obtained is a requirement that the inferences to support the search "be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being Judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v. United States, 333 US 10, 13-14, 68 SCt 367, 369, 92 LEd 436 (1948); see also Aguilar v. Texas, 378 US 108, 110-111, 84 SCt 1509, 1511-12, 12 LEd2d 723 (1964). The importance of informed, detached and deliberate determinations of the issue whether or not to invade another's body in search of evidence is indisputable and great.
Schmerber, 384 US at 770, 86 SCt at 1835, 16 LEd2d 908. However, the Supreme Court determined that because the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, and because a certain level of intoxicant must be present to support a criminal charge, an emergency or exigent circumstances rationale required the taking of Schmerber's blood without warrant. Id. at 771.
[ ] After stating its holding, the Supreme Court emphasized its narrowness:
"It bears repeating, however, that we reach this judgment only on the facts of the present record. The integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value of our society. That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States' minor intrusions into an individual's body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions." Schmerber, 384 US at 772, 86 SCt at 1836, 16 LEd2d 908.
[ ] While the State argues the existence of exigent circumstances, the officer's tes
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.
|
|