 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hanson1/20/1999
onstitution 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. Id. at 772, 86 SCt at 1836 (emphasis added). We must heed that caution.
Evidence illegally obtained must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. State v. Shearer, 1996 SD 52, § 21, 548 NW2d 792, 796 (citing State v. McCreary, 82 SD 111, 125, 142 NW2d 240, 247 (1966) (citing 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)).
Here, the police only had probable cause to support an arrest for possession of the marijuana and paraphernalia found in the back seat of the vehicle. The police did not have probable cause to support an arrest for ingesting and, therefore, had no right to coerce Mrs. Hanson into providing a urine sample. Apparently, Hanson's counsel claims the floodgates have already been opened for police to illegally coerce urine samples in improper cases. We must try to close those floodgates before it is too late.
The trial court was clearly erroneous in denying Hanson's motion to suppress the urinalysis results.
There Was Insufficient Evidence To Support Hanson's Conviction When The Improperly Admitted Urine Test Result Is Disregarded.
"When an action is tried to the court, the presumption is that improperly admitted testimony is disregarded." Matter of R.S.S., 474 NW2d 743, 750 (SD 1991) (citations omitted). However, that presumption is not valid here. Hanson's conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, with a great deal of reliance placed on the results of her urine sample. The trial court refused to suppress the results of the urine sample and, therefore, considered it to be admissible evidence when making its verdict. It cannot be presumed that the improperly admitted results were disregarded by the trial court because they clearly were not.
We should reverse and remand for retrial.
AMUNDSON, Justice, joins this Dissent.
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.
|
|