 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hanson1/20/1999
Corrected Feb 4, 1999
South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from the Third Judicial Circuit, Beadle County, SD Hon. Jon R. Erickson, Judge
Affirmed
Argued Oct 21, 1998; Reassigned Nov 25, 1998 Opinion Filed Jan 20, 1999
Hanson appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana claiming that 1) the police lacked probable cause to arrest her; 2) her constitutional rights were violated in obtaining a sample of her urine; and 3) there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On February 21, 1997, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Huron police stopped a car driven by J.S., age 16, for violation of the tinted window law. Pamela Hanson (Hanson), age 42, was a passenger in the front seat and M.G., age 15, a passenger in the rear seat. J.S. and M.G. were friends of Hanson's son.
Officer Marotteck spoke with J.S. about the identity of the other occupants of the car. He learned that M.G. was 15 years old and in violation of the city's curfew law. Officer Marotteck leaned into the car to speak with M.G. and detected a faint odor of burnt marijuana.
Officer Marotteck spoke separately with all three passengers about where they had been and what they had been doing. Hanson claimed to have been in the car only a short time in order to receive a ride from her home to the grocery store. The stories of the two juveniles conflicted. All three denied any knowledge regarding the odor of marijuana. None claimed there had ever been a fourth passenger.
A drug dog was brought to the scene and "hit" on the car, but not on any of the three passengers. Searches of the car revealed a partially burned marijuana leaf and seed on the rear seat and a pipe with burnt marijuana residue under the rear seat. All three passengers denied any knowledge of the marijuana and pipe.
Hanson and the two juveniles were arrested. Hanson was transported to the police department where a urine sample was obtained. According to the trial court, her consent was "not requested, nor obtained." The urine sample tested positive for marijuana.
Hanson was charged with one count of possession of less than one-half pound of marijuana in violation of SDCL 22-42-6 and one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of SDCL 22-42-5. The methamphetamine charge was dismissed prior to trial.
Hanson's motion to suppress the urinalysis evidence was denied by the trial court. At a court trial held June 4, 1997, M.G. testified that the pipe belonged to him and no marijuana had been smoked in the car on the night in question. The trial court stated in its memorandum opinion dated November 20, 1997, that it did not find the juvenile's testimony to be credible and found Hanson guilty of possession of marijuana.
Hanson appeals raising the following issues:
"1. Whether there was probable cause for Hanson's arrest.
2. Whether the seizure of Hanson's urine violated her constitutional rights.
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Hanson's conviction."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our standard of review is well established:
"A trial court's findings of fact from a suppression hearing must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Pfaff, 456 NW2d 558 (SD 1990). Similarly, a trial court's finding concerning probable cause for a warrantless arrest will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. U.S. v. Woolbright, 831 F2d 1390 (8thCir 1987); U.S. v. McGlynn, 671 F2d 1140 (8thCir 1982). This court's function under the clearly erroneous standard is
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.
|
|