951 N.W.2d 294
S.D.2020Background:
- On March 20, 2019, April Roberts, a resident, found a small baggie she believed contained methamphetamine in a common-area dryer at the apartment building at 53 Dunlap Ave and reported prior similar finds and "heavy short-term traffic" at Apartment 15.
- Deadwood officers investigated, observed and field-tested a substance from the baggie that preliminarily tested positive for methamphetamine, knocked on Apartment 15 (a male inside asked who it was), then used a property-manager key to enter and detain Dana Olmsted.
- Investigator James Olson supplied corroborating information: he knew Apartment 15 was rented by Carrie Ostby, had unconfirmed tips Ostby distributed meth, and observed short visits to the residence by a person later arrested with meth.
- Officer Erik Jandt obtained a magistrate-issued warrant to search Apartment 15 (and Ostby’s vehicle) and to take urine samples; the ensuing search recovered multiple bags of methamphetamine in the apartment and urine tests for Ostby and Olmsted were positive.
- Olmsted and Ostby moved to suppress, arguing the warrant affidavit lacked probable cause and exigent-circumstances did not justify a warrantless search; the circuit court granted suppression. The State appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the affidavit established probable cause for the apartment search and whether the good-faith exception applied (the court did not decide vehicle/urine probable cause or exigent circumstances because they were not before it).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search Apartment 15 | The affidavit (Roberts’ firsthand tip corroborated by officers’ field test and Olson’s observations) gave a fair probability contraband would be found in Apt. 15 | Roberts’ tips concerned common areas and unlinked visitors; no sufficient nexus to Apartment 15 | Reversed: magistrate could reasonably find Roberts reliable and a fair probability contraband was in Apt. 15; probable cause existed |
| Whether the good-faith exception excuses an invalid warrant | Alternatively, officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant | Defendants sought suppression of evidence obtained under the warrant | Not reached: because the court found probable cause, it did not decide good-faith applicability |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- State v. Gilmore, 762 N.W.2d 637 (S.D. 2009) (review limited to affidavit’s four corners; deferential review of magistrate)
- State v. Tenold, 937 N.W.2d 6 (S.D. 2019) (probable cause requires fair probability; consider veracity and basis of knowledge)
- State v. Raveydts, 691 N.W.2d 290 (S.D. 2004) (great deference to issuing judge’s probable-cause finding)
- State v. Dubois, 746 N.W.2d 197 (S.D. 2008) (known, firsthand informant can carry heightened reliability)
- State v. Jackson, 616 N.W.2d 412 (S.D. 2000) (courts cannot perform de novo probable-cause review beyond affidavit)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (U.S. 2018) ("whole picture"/totality approach to facts)
- State v. Sharpfish, 933 N.W.2d 1 (S.D. 2019) (reasonable-suspicion context distinguishing anonymous tips; not controlling when informant is known)
- Guthrie v. Weber, 767 N.W.2d 539 (S.D. 2009) (Fourth Amendment nexus requirement between location and alleged criminal activity)