 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hess5/5/2004
ing that exigent circumstances justified warrantless forcible nighttime entry into the home. The majority opinion relies on the fact that evidence was being destroyed because the defendant was ingesting the methamphetamine. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance in violation of SDCL 22-42-5, and inhalation of a substance for the purpose of becoming intoxicated in violation of 22-42-15.
. SDCL 22-42-5 provides in part:
No person may knowingly possess a controlled drug or substance unless the substance was obtained directly or pursuant to a valid prescription or order from a practitioner . A violation of this section is a Class 4 felony.
SDCL 22-42-15 provides in part:
Any person who intentionally ingests, inhales, or otherwise takes into the body any substance for purposes of becoming intoxicated, unless such substance is prescribed by a practitioner of the medical arts , is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The venue for a violation of this section exists in either the jurisdiction in which the substance was ingested, inhaled, or otherwise taken into the body or the jurisdiction in which the substance was detected in the body of the accused.
This Court has clearly held that a positive urinalysis which reveals the presence of a controlled substance is sufficient to support a conviction under SDCL 22-42-5. See State v. Schroeder, 2004 SD 21, 674 NW2d 827. Likewise, by the statute's plain language, simply detecting the substance in the defendant's body is sufficient to sustain a conviction under SDCL 22-42-15. Therefore, the fear that evidence was being destroyed in the home was wholly insufficient justification for the officer's warrantless entry into the home. Assuming for the moment that they were legally on the premises, the officers should have maintained the status quo and obtained a search warrant to enter to house and conduct a urinalysis on the defendants.
. The majority opinion's concern with the seriousness of the crime of possession of methamphetamine becomes irrelevant in light of the fact that whether the evidence was lying on the floor of the bedroom or ingested into the body of the defendant, it remained accessible to the officers. The State bears a heavy burden to prove an exception to the warrant requirement, particularly when it has engaged in a nighttime intrusion into a home. The State has not met that burden. We should reverse the trial court's decision denying the defendant's motion to suppress this illegally obtained evidence.
. MEIERHENRY, Justice joins this special writing.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|