State v. Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174

At ~1 a.m. a sobriety checkpoint existed on the highway Rademaker traveled; signs with flashing amber lights marked the checkpoint about 100 yards away.
Rademaker approached the checkpoint, passed the northern sign, and turned onto a gravel road away from the checkpoint.
An officer followed, aiming to contact him for avoiding the checkpoint; the officer believed this meant stopping him.
The officer observed a wide turn and, prior to stopping, that Rademaker may have been driving excessively fast for conditions.
Rademaker smelled of alcohol, admitted drinking, and provided a breath test of .185 (blood test later .182); he was arrested for DUI.
Rademaker moved to suppress evidence as obtained from an allegedly unlawful stop; the trial court denied the motion; he was convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle?	Rademaker argues avoidance of checkpoint cannot create reasonable suspicion.	State argues totality of circumstances supports suspicion despite checkpoint avoidance.	Yes; reasonable suspicion existed under totality of circumstances.

State v. Thill, 474 N.W.2d 86 (S.D. 1991) (checkpoint avoidance can be suspicious but not alone sufficient)
State v. Iverson, 768 N.W.2d 534 (S.D. 2009) (applies totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Herren, 792 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 2010) (reasonable suspicion is objective; factors assessed at time of stop)
State v. Bergee, 753 N.W.2d 911 (S.D. 2008) (time of day as a factor in reasonable suspicion)
State v. Wright, 791 N.W.2d 794 (S.D. 2010) (standard of review for suppression motions)
State v. Dahl, 2012 S.D. 8 (S.D.) (wide turn can contribute to suspicion in appropriate circumstances)
United States v. Carpenter, 462 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006) (exit from highway after checkpoint signs can be suspicious)
United States v. Williams, 359 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2004) (checkpoint-related conduct may raise suspicion)