877 N.W.2d 593
S.D.2016Background
- At ~2:50 a.m., Officer Burgard observed Terron Olson driving north on 12th Avenue and come to a complete stop for ~15–30 seconds at an uncontrolled intersection where Olson had the right of way.
- There was no stop sign or traffic signal requiring Olson to stop; east–west traffic at the intersection was subject to a stop sign.
- After Olson stopped, he turned west onto 7th Street and drove past Burgard, who activated his recording equipment and initiated a traffic stop.
- Burgard observed signs of alcohol consumption and arrested Olson for DUI and possession of an open container.
- Olson moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the magistrate and circuit courts denied suppression and convicted Olson following a stipulated trial.
- Olson appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which reviewed de novo whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion | The State: the totality of circumstances (no stop sign, 15–30 sec stop, near 3:00 a.m., officer training) gave officers particularized, objective basis to suspect impairment | Olson: a single stop at an uncontrolled intersection (or brief hesitation) does not alone justify reasonable suspicion; stop was innocent | Court: Affirmed — under the totality of the circumstances (time, length of unnecessary stop, officer training) reasonable suspicion existed and suppression was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174 (S.D. 2012) (standard of review and motion-to-suppress framework)
- State v. Herren, 792 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 2010) (analyzing delayed stop at a stop sign and reasonable-suspicion standard)
- State v. Bergee, 753 N.W.2d 911 (S.D. 2008) (investigatory stop must be objectively reasonable and articulable)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-the-circumstances and officer inferences from training)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (officer need not rule out innocent explanations; after-the-fact explanations do not negate reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Reynolds, 899 P.2d 540 (Mont. 1995) (hesitation at intersection may be innocent; factual contrast)
- State v. Waldner, 556 N.W.2d 681 (Wis. 1996) (multiple facts collectively may support reasonable suspicion even if each alone would not)