849 N.W.2d 624
S.D.2014Background
- Burkett, with two prior DUI convictions within ten years, was charged with third-offense DUI under SDCL 32-23-1.
- January 26, 2013: Burkett's multiple Napa Auto Parts visits; a clerk smelled alcohol and Burkett appeared intoxicated on the third visit.
- Henderson called 911 reporting an impaired driver; tip remained anonymous to officers.
- Officer Lux, following the described van, encountered Burkett stop in a residential street; Burkett resisted testing and offered inconsistent explanations.
- BAC evidence was suppressed; Burkett was convicted of DUI as a Class 6 felony based on the other evidence.
- Burkett appealed on three issues: King-style challenge to prior convictions, sufficiency of evidence, and suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May King challenge be used to strike prior convictions for enhancement? | Burkett: due process allows King challenge to prior for sentencing. | State: Custis-/Custis-like framework forecloses; no statutory basis. | King challenge no longer available; affirmed denial. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict of DUI? | Burkett contends evidence fails to show 'under the influence'. | State relied on odor, slurred speech, incoherence, driving and officer training. | Evidence sufficient; rational jury could convict. |
| Was the stop based on Officer Lux's reasonable suspicion valid? | Stop driven by anonymous tip; no independent observed violation. | Tip plus Burkett’s erratic driving justify stop under totality of circumstances. | Stop reasonable; totality supported reasonable suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1994) (limits collateral attacks on predicates for sentencing; only counsel-denial defect yields relief)
- State v. King, 383 N.W.2d 854 (S.D. 1986) (first allows collateral challenge to predicate convictions used for enhancement)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2001) (finality and review principles limit collateral attacks; final judgments matter)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (S. Ct. 2014) (anonymous tips can support reasonable suspicion depending on reliability)
- Scholl, 2004 S.D. 85, 684 N.W.2d 83 (S.D. 2004) (anonymous tip can justify stop with corroboration)
- Herren, 2010 S.D. 101, 792 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 2010) (totality of circumstances governs reasonable suspicion to stop)