954 N.W.2d 731
S.D.2021Background
- In January 2017 DCI Special Agent Rasmussen and BIA Special Agent Hooper visited Morgan Cummings’s home on Indian trust land to investigate burglaries that occurred off the reservation. Rasmussen was a state DCI agent (federally deputized for certain drug investigations); Hooper was a BIA officer.
- The officers knocked, were invited inside, and engaged in a consensual "knock-and-talk" encounter; Morgan (age 18) sat in Rasmussen’s unlocked vehicle, was told he could leave, and made admissions including that he took a saddle and showed where it was located.
- Charlie Cummings (father) voluntarily produced stolen items and later signed a consent-to-search form with Morgan; physical items were recovered.
- Morgan was indicted in state court and moved to suppress his statements and the physical evidence, arguing officers lacked authority in Indian country and that the encounter/consent were unconstitutional.
- The circuit court suppressed Morgan’s statements (relying on State v. Spotted Horse and State v. Cummings), but admitted physical evidence; the State appealed and the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the suppression of statements and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to investigate in Indian country | State: Officers may enter Indian country to investigate off-reservation crimes; encounter was consensual and lawful under federal precedent. | Morgan: State officers lacked authority absent tribal consent or warrant; Spotted Horse and Cummings bar such intrusions and render consent invalid. | Court: Nevada v. Hicks controls; state officers may lawfully enter Indian country to investigate crimes committed off the reservation; Rasmussen’s presence was lawful and noninfringing. |
| Fourth Amendment seizure & suppression remedy | State: Encounter was a consensual knock-and-talk; no seizure or Fourth Amendment violation, so statements admissible. | Morgan: Even if consensual on face, jurisdictional intrusion invoked Fourth Amendment protections and requires suppression (per Spotted Horse/Cummings). | Court: No seizure; no reasonable expectation of privacy invasion here; knock-and-talk doctrine applies; suppression reversed and case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Spotted Horse, 462 N.W.2d 463 (S.D. 1990) (held forcible pursuit/arrest of tribal member on reservation violated Fourth Amendment; evidence suppressed)
- State v. Cummings, 679 N.W.2d 484 (S.D. 2004) (reaffirmed Spotted Horse and suppressed evidence from pursuit-based arrest on reservation)
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (held state officers may execute process and investigate off-reservation crimes on reservation and recognized limits on tribal regulatory authority)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (explained "knock-and-talk" implied license to approach a home and scope of lawful doorstep encounters)
- Florida v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (consent to search is valid even if officer hopes to obtain it by approaching the subject)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness test for investigatory stops and encounters)