908 N.W.2d 181
S.D.2018Background
- On Jan. 26, 2015 police stopped a vehicle; a drug dog alerted and officers found a pipe and ~0.5 oz marijuana in the car; Lar (rear passenger) was arrested for marijuana and paraphernalia.
- After arrest and without a warrant or consent, officers observed Lar urinate into a specimen cup; the State Lab detected methamphetamine metabolites.
- Lar moved to suppress the urinalysis results; the circuit court denied the motion. Lar waived a jury trial on the ingestion charge, was convicted, and sentenced to 3 years.
- Lar appealed arguing the warrantless compelled urine collection was not a valid search incident to arrest.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed, holding the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before compelling an arrestee to provide a urine sample under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lar) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers may, without a warrant, require an arrestee to provide a urine sample as a search incident to arrest | Warrantless compelled urine collection is not authorized as a search incident to arrest because it intrudes on privacy and is not justified by Chimel rationales | Search-incident-to-arrest doctrine covers searches for evidence on the person; urine can contain evidence and preserving it can justify collection without a warrant | The court held law enforcement may not compel an arrestee to urinate into a specimen container as a search incident to arrest; a warrant is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (searches incident to arrest justified to remove weapons and prevent destruction of evidence)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to lawful arrest is categorical)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (privacy interests can outweigh evidence-preservation interests for certain categories of data)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (warrantless breath tests differ from blood tests; privacy/intrusion analysis)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (biological samples can reveal medical facts; collection may involve visual/aural monitoring)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (natural dissipation/metabolization may, in some cases, create exigency but is not per se exigent)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (warrant preference and probable cause standard)