893 N.W.2d 522
S.D.2017Background
- Around 2:00 a.m., a Hardee’s drive‑through employee (Hill) observed the driver (Stanage) with bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and impaired motor control; the shift supervisor (Debough) phoned dispatch and told officers employees were holding a possibly drunk driver and gave the vehicle’s license plate.
- Dispatcher relayed only that Hardee’s employees were holding a suspected drunk driver and the plate number to Deputy Kriese; the dispatcher did not relate Hill’s specific observations or the informant’s identity to Kriese.
- Kriese, a block away, asked the employees to release the driver, then stopped Stanage’s vehicle as it left the drive‑through; Kriese had not independently observed any erratic driving before the stop.
- At the stop Kriese smelled alcohol, administered field sobriety tests, arrested Stanage, and obtained a blood draw showing BAC 0.204%.
- Stanage moved to suppress evidence from the stop and blood draw; the trial and circuit courts denied suppression. The South Dakota Supreme Court considered whether Kriese had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stanage) | Defendant's Argument (State/Deputy Kriese) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deputy Kriese had reasonable suspicion to stop Stanage | The stop lacked reasonable suspicion because Kriese only had a conclusory tip and identifying details (plate); Hill’s observations were not conveyed to Kriese and thus cannot be considered. | The tip was reliable because informants were identifiable (Hardee’s employees), contemporaneous, and employees were holding the driver—circumstances justified a commonsense inference of intoxication. | Reversed: no reasonable suspicion. The stop relied on a conclusory tip plus an identifying detail; absent the employees’ observed facts being known to the officer or independent corroboration, reasonable suspicion was lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (a reliable 911 tip alleging dangerous driving can justify a stop when it reports specific, dangerous conduct)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (a tip that only identifiably locates a person does not establish reliability about concealed illegal activity)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops on reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test; a magistrate/officer must assess basis of informant’s knowledge)
- State v. Scholl, 684 N.W.2d 83 (S.D. 2004) (tip describing non‑driving intoxication conduct at a bar justified a stop)
- State v. Burkett, 849 N.W.2d 624 (S.D. 2014) (anemic tip can be compensated by officer’s independent observation of erratic driving)
- State v. Mohr, 841 N.W.2d 440 (S.D. 2013) (identifiable informant + context/exigency can justify detention when officers are familiar with circumstances and prompt action is required)