Siers v. Weber
2014 SD 51
S.D.2014Background
- Siers filed a habeas petition claiming his DUI conviction counsel failed to advise on the blood evidence seizure.
- Blood was drawn without Siers’s consent or a warrant, and the sample was key to his conviction.
- South Dakota law previously treated blood draws as exigent without warrants due to natural dissipation of alcohol.
- McNeely (2013) held that natural dissipation is not per se exigent, prompting retroactivity questions in SD.
- The habeas court dismissed, but certified two McNeely-related issues for appellate review.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota held McNeely announced a new rule and declined retroactive application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did McNeely announce a new rule of law? | Siers: McNeely restates Schmerber; not new. | State: McNeely broke new ground and is not merely restating precedent. | McNeely announced a new rule. |
| Should McNeely be retroactively applied in habeas. | Siers: retroactivity appropriate given final convictions and potential system impact. | State: retroactivity not warranted; risks disruption and undermines final judgments. | McNeely not given retroactive effect. |
| What standard governs retroactivity here? | Siers argues for Linkletter factors or a broader retroactivity approach. | State argues for Teague framework to govern retroactivity. | Teague retroactivity standard adopted; McNeely not retroactive. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hartman, 256 N.W.2d 131 (S.D. 1977) (exigency and blood draws without warrant historically allowed)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (bodily samples exception to exclusionary rule; exigency via dissipation)
- Cowell v. Leapley, 458 N.W.2d 514 (S.D. 1990) (retroactivity analysis traditionally used in SD cases)
- Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (U.S. 2008) (federal framework for retroactivity and Teague considerations)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (establishes Teague retroactivity exceptions in collateral review)
- García v. State, 834 N.W.2d 821 (S.D. 2013) (SD retroactivity framework and finality concerns in state habeas)
- McCafferty v. Solem (McCafferty III), 449 N.W.2d 590 (S.D. 1989) (historical retroactivity standards in SD criminal cases)
- State v. One 1966 Pontiac Auto., 270 N.W.2d 362 (S.D. 1978) (early retroactivity framework in SD jurisprudence)