884 N.W.2d 749
S.D.2016Background
- On April 29, 2014 Officer Brian Wassenaar stopped Apolinar Lerma after observing Lerma’s left rear brake light fail to illuminate; Lerma’s right and center brake lights worked.
- After the stop, the officer observed signs of intoxication; Lerma’s PBT showed a BAC of 0.182% and he was arrested for DUI.
- Lerma moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing SDCL 32-17-8.1 requires only two working stop lamps and his vehicle met that minimum.
- The circuit court granted suppression, concluding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and that his belief the statute required left and right brake lights was objectively unreasonable.
- The State appealed; after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heien v. North Carolina (regarding objectively reasonable mistakes of law), the State argued either the statute was violated or the officer’s mistaken belief was objectively reasonable.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute requires only two stop lamps but the officer’s mistaken belief that all originally equipped lights must function was objectively reasonable under Heien.
Issues
| Issue | Lerma's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 32-17-8.1 required all originally equipped brake lights to work | SDCL 32-17-8.1 requires only two working stop lamps; Lerma had two | The statute can be read to require all equipped lamps to display and actuate | Court: statute requires only two stop lamps; display/actuation apply to the required two |
| Whether the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment for lack of reasonable suspicion | Stop was unlawful because no statutory violation occurred | Stop lawful because officer reasonably (objectively) believed a violation occurred | Court: even if no actual violation, officer’s mistake of law was objectively reasonable; stop lawful |
| Whether prior authority made the officer’s mistake unreasonable | Lerma: prior caselaw/statute do not support officer’s view of SDCL 32‑17‑8.1 | State: cases/statutes and prior interpretations (Anderson, Martin, SDCL 32‑21‑27) provided bases making mistake reasonable | Court: prior authorities and ambiguity support finding officer’s mistake objectively reasonable |
| Proper standard for evaluating officer’s belief | Officer’s subjective view irrelevant; focus on objective reasonableness | Same premise; but State emphasizes objective test informed by legal landscape | Court applied objective-reasonableness test under Heien and found mistake reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (Fourth Amendment allows investigatory stops based on objectively reasonable mistakes of law)
- United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2005) (interpreting South Dakota brake-light provision and recognizing potential ambiguity supporting reasonable mistake)
- State v. Anderson, 359 N.W.2d 887 (S.D. 1984) (noting inoperative side brake light in context of stop; referenced as supporting authority)
- State v. Wright, 791 N.W.2d 791 (S.D. 2010) (explaining that objective-reasonableness of a legal mistake must be grounded in actual legal authority and prior interpretations)