State v. Sharpfish, 933 N.W.2d 1

Officer Loen received a dispatch of an intoxicated driver (description of vehicle and driver) and went to a well-lit gas station around 1:45 a.m.; he did not observe erratic driving before arrival.
Loen parked about a car length behind the blue minivan, activated amber lights, exited, and approached on foot; Sharpfish was out of the van, swaying, slurring, smelling of alcohol, bloodshot, and gave his license.
Loen asked about drinking; Sharpfish initially refused most field sobriety tests, performed only HGN, and was then arrested; a blood warrant showed BAC 0.222%.
Magistrate court denied suppression, convicted Sharpfish after a bench trial; on appeal the circuit court granted suppression, reversed the conviction, and remanded.
After this Court dismissed an earlier State appeal as untimely, the magistrate entered an order granting suppression consistent with the circuit court; the State petitioned for intermediate appeal again and this Court granted review.

Issue	State (Plaintiff) Argument	Sharpfish (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal from the magistrate’s suppression order	SDCL 23A-32-12 permits discretionary appeals of intermediate pre-trial orders; petition was timely from the magistrate’s post-remand order	SDCL 23A-32-5 bars appeals after a defendant has been "put in jeopardy" (here, post-bench trial), so the State lacks jurisdiction; prior untimely petition doesn't reset clock	Court exercised jurisdiction under SDCL 23A-32-12 (ends-of-justice discretionary appeal) and addressed the merits; plurality disagreed on statutory basis but affirmed jurisdiction overall
Whether the initial contact was a Fourth Amendment seizure or a consensual encounter that ripened into a lawful investigatory stop	The contact was consensual at the outset; reasonable suspicion arose only after Loen observed signs of intoxication, so subsequent seizure was justified	The officer’s positioning, amber lights, uniform and statement that Sharpfish was the subject of a complaint made the encounter a seizure from the start	No seizure occurred at initial approach; under the totality of circumstances a reasonable person would have felt free to leave; Loen developed reasonable suspicion after greeting Sharpfish and before the detention, so suppression was unwarranted

United States v. Navarette, 572 U.S. 393 (officer reasonable-suspicion analysis for tips)
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability insufficient)
State v. Iversen, 768 N.W.2d 534 (S.D. 2009) (officer approach to parked car can be consensual)
State v. Haar, 772 N.W.2d 157 (S.D. 2009) (factors indicating investigatory detention)
State v. Koch, 818 N.W.2d 793 (S.D. 2012) (magistrate suppression order not final; appeal paths)
Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (jeopardy attaches when judge begins to hear evidence)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (double jeopardy and government relitigation limits)
State v. Reath, 673 N.W.2d 294 (S.D. 2003) (prior statement that attachment of jeopardy ends § 23A-32-5 appeals)