State v. Buchholz8/11/1999
at 1835, 16 LEd2d 908 (emphasis added). The unreasonable seizure of bodily substances is a protected constitutional right.
[ ] As the United States Supreme Court articulated in Rochin v. California, 342 US 165, 173, 72 SCt 205, 210, 96 LEd 183 (1952). "It would be a stultification of the responsibility which the course of constitutional history has cast upon this Court to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind but can extract what is in his stomach." Law enforcement forced Buchholz to submit to a urine test on the mere chance there would be evidence of use. The officer observed no behavior indicating Buchholz was under the influence of drugs. Such evidence was not necessary to convict Buchholz of the crime she was charged. It bears repeating that this is not a case where defendant was arrested for being under the influence of a drug. Moreover, the State has completely failed to show the existence of exigent or emergency circumstances. Therefore, considering all of the foregoing, this search violated the Fourth Amendment.
[ ] Evidence illegally seized must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. Shearer, 1996 SD 52, § 21, 548 NW2d at 796 (citing State v. McCreary, 82 SD 111, 125, 142 NW2d 240, 247 (1966); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 81 SCt 1684, 6 LEd2d 1081 (1961)). "The rationale for this rule is to deter police from violating constitutional protections." Shearer, 1996 SD 52 at § 21, 548 NW2d at 796 (citing State v. Saiz, 427 NW2d 825, 826 (SD 1988)).
[ ] Although it was error to admit the results of the urine test, State argues such admission is harmless error.
In order to find error harmless, it is necessary for the appellate court to find that the admission of the erroneous evidence did not prejudice the defendant's case. "Prejudicial error, when constitutional questions are being considered, is error which would have some likelihood of changing the result." State v. Blue Thunder, 466 NW2d 613, 618-19 (SD 1991) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 US 18, 24, 87 SCt 824, 828, 17 LEd2d 705 (1967)). A constitutional violation may constitute harmless error, and thus not require reversal, if the court can declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained. State v. Michalek, 407 NW2d 815, 819 (SD 1987) (emphasis added). State v. Schuster, 502 NW2d 565, 570 (SD 1993). See Chapman v. California, 386 US 18, 87 SCt 824, 17 LEd2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 US 250, 89 SCt 1726, 23 LEd2d 284 (1969)); accord State v. Helmer, 1996 SD 31, § 37, 545 NW2d 471, 477; State v. Larson, 512 NW2d 732, 735 (SD 1994).
[ ] A review of closing arguments discloses that the state's attorney relied almost exclusively on the urine test results to prove a critical element of the crime, knowledge. () I conclude, after reviewing the entire record, use of this inadmissible evidence clearly resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Therefore, I would reverse and remand for a new fair trial.
SABERS, Justice (dissenting).
[ ] I join Justice Amundson's Dissent in all respects.
[ ] In addition, the forced urine test of defendant violated Article VI, § 9 of the South Dakota Constitution. "There can be no doubt that this court has the power to provide an individual with greater protection under the state constitution than does the United States Supreme Court under the federal constitution." State v. Opperman, 247 NW2d 673, 674 (SD 1976) (citing Oregon v. Hass, 420 US 714, 95 SCt 1215, 43 LEd2d 570 (1975)). Article VI, § 9 provides independent state grounds for reversing and remanding this conviction.
[ ] Article VI
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|