945 N.W.2d 548
S.D.2020Background
- Rapid City officers responded to a 911 report of a fight at 45 Neptune Drive and arrived within minutes.
- Officers found two women by a vehicle; one, Makayla Mousseaux, attempted to carry a black duffle into a trailer after being told to wait.
- Officer Coats and another officer blocked the trailer door; when Mousseaux tried to enter, Coats grabbed her arm and asked for identification.
- Mousseaux gave a false name and DOB; dispatch initially returned no record, so officers handcuffed her for false identification.
- Another officer later matched her to a prior booking photo and dispatch discovered a preexisting, unrelated arrest warrant; after arrest, a search of her bag produced methamphetamine residue and paraphernalia.
- Mousseaux moved to suppress arguing the detention lacked reasonable suspicion; the circuit court suppressed, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed based on the attenuation doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Mousseaux after preventing entry to her trailer | The State maintained the stop was constitutional (investigative detention lawful) | Mousseaux argued officers lacked particularized, objective suspicion and the detention was unconstitutional | The circuit court found no reasonable suspicion and suppressed; the Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, the stop might be unlawful and resolved the case on attenuation instead of deciding reasonableness |
| Whether the attenuation doctrine (preexisting warrant) renders the evidence admissible despite a potentially unlawful stop | The State argued the unrelated, preexisting arrest warrant attenuated the taint of any unlawful detention, so the search incident to arrest was lawful | Mousseaux argued the factors (short temporal proximity, no intervening circumstances, possible police misconduct) favored suppression | Applying Strieff’s three-factor test, the Court found temporal proximity favored suppression but the preexisting warrant and absence of flagrant misconduct weighed for the State; overall attenuation applied and suppression was reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (U.S. 2016) (articulated three-factor attenuation test and held a preexisting warrant can attenuate an unlawful stop)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2006) (exclusionary rule is a last resort; suppression has substantial costs)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule requires sufficiently deliberate police misconduct to deter)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (no single attenuation factor controls; totality must be weighed)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (warrant is a judicial mandate and can justify subsequent officer conduct)