Ibrahim v. Dep't of Public Safety, 956 N.W.2d 799

June 2019: Department of Public Safety notified Ibrahim that his South Dakota CDL would be disqualified for one year under SDCL 32-12A-36(4) based on a 2018 felony conviction arising from marijuana found in his vehicle after an August 2017 traffic stop.
Ibrahim requested an administrative hearing before the Office of Hearing Examiners (OHE); the OHE found he had a CDL and was convicted of a “felony committed in a vehicle by a CDL holder,” and ordered a one-year disqualification.
Ibrahim appealed to circuit court, arguing insufficient evidence; the circuit court sua sponte questioned statutory scope and vagueness and held SDCL 32-12A-36(4) required the vehicle be an "instrumentality" of the felony and was not satisfied here, and that the statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied.
The Department appealed the circuit court’s reversal, contending the statute’s plain language covers possession of a felony quantity of marijuana in a vehicle and that the statute is not vague.
The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, concluded SDCL 32-12A-36(4) applies when a vehicle is used as a means to possess a felony quantity of marijuana, held the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied, and reversed the circuit court, affirming the Department’s decision (noting the administrative transcript was not provided but presuming findings supported).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether possession of a felony quantity of marijuana in a vehicle is "using a ... vehicle in the commission of any felony" under SDCL 32-12A-36(4)	Ibrahim: statute requires the vehicle be an instrumentality of the felony (i.e., the offense must penalize vehicle use); mere possession in a vehicle is not enough	Dept.: "any felony" is broad; using a vehicle to possess a felony quantity of drugs falls within the phrase	Held: "use" includes putting a vehicle into service to commit the felony; possession of felony quantity of marijuana in a vehicle qualifies and triggers disqualification
Whether SDCL 32-12A-36(4) is unconstitutionally vague	Ibrahim: language is vague because there is no distinct crime labeled "using a vehicle in the commission of a felony"	Dept.: statute’s subsections and plain language give fair notice; not vague	Held: statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied; a person transporting controlled substances in a vehicle has fair notice
Whether evidence supported the Department's disqualification	Ibrahim: OHE findings were clearly erroneous; Department failed to submit sufficient documentation	Dept.: OHE record (abstract, docket number, testimony) supports findings; absence of transcript does not defeat presumption of regularity	Held: Court could not fully review missing transcript, but presumes OHE acted properly; Ibrahim did not rebut presumption; evidence sufficed to affirm disqualification

State v. Bowers, 915 N.W.2d 161 (sets de novo standard for statutory interpretation)
State v. Myers, 857 N.W.2d 597 (use ordinary meaning of legislative language)
State v. Barry, 681 N.W.2d 89 (defines possession as dominion or right of control with knowledge)
In re Jarman, 860 N.W.2d 1 (standards for judicial review of agency factual findings)
Graff v. Children’s Care Hosp. & Sch., 943 N.W.2d 484 (appellant’s failure to provide transcript limits review; presumption that factfinder acted properly)
Erickson v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 904 N.W.2d 352 (affirming agency disqualification where criminal file/transcript absent)
Donat v. Johnson, 862 N.W.2d 122 (standard for vagueness challenge as applied)