State v. Bowers, 915 N.W.2d 161

Late night (around 1:42 a.m.) officer observed a pickup leave a bar, cross the centerline, and swerve multiple times on a bridge, nearly hitting a concrete barrier; officer initiated a traffic stop.
Officer detected alcohol odor, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes; defendant Bowers refused field sobriety tests and was arrested.
Officer obtained an electronic affidavit and telephonic jurat from a magistrate for a blood draw; magistrate electronically signed the jurat and warrant; blood test showed BAC 0.289%.
Bowers moved to suppress, arguing (1) the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and (2) the electronically sworn affidavit/warrant violated the South Dakota Warrants Clause and statutory requirements.
Circuit court denied the motion to suppress; Bowers was tried on stipulated facts, found guilty, and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle	Officer observed traffic violations, weaving, leaving a bar late at night; these facts supply reasonable suspicion	Bowers argued video and passenger testimony contradicted officer and undermined credibility	Court upheld stop: findings that officer saw centerline crossing, weaving, and near-barrier contact supported reasonable suspicion
Whether electronically-signed affidavit sworn over phone satisfied Warrants Clause/statute	State argued SD statutes permit electronic affidavits and telephonic swearing; electronic signature and jurat suffice	Bowers argued affidavit required in-person signature/sworn oath before magistrate and recording/transcript under telephonic-warrant statute	Court held statutes permit oath without personal appearance, electronic signature is valid under SD electronic-signature statutes, and telephonic-recording rule did not apply to a written sworn affidavit; warrant valid

State v. Doap Deng Chuol, 849 N.W.2d 255 (S.D. 2014) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Ballard, 617 N.W.2d 837 (S.D. 2000) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)
State v. Babcock, 718 N.W.2d 624 (S.D. 2006) (deferential review when assessing warrants and probable cause)
State v. Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174 (S.D. 2012) (reasonable suspicion factors for DUI stops include time, place, and driving conduct)
State v. Starkey, 807 N.W.2d 125 (S.D. 2011) (traffic violations can provide reasonable suspicion)
State v. Herring, 692 S.E.2d 490 (S.C. 2010) (approving affidavit sworn over the phone where statute did not require in-person oath)