State v. Starkey
807 N.W.2d 125
S.D.2011Background
- Starkey was stopped for DUI; stop based on officer Fletcher’s belief Starkey was evading police.
- Circuit Court suppressed the evidence, finding no reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
- Fletcher followed Starkey after observing unusual driving patterns and evasive maneuvers.
- Starkey’s driving included stopping in a lane, an “S” maneuver, and a circuitous downtown route near closing bars.
- The stop occurred in downtown Rapid City; location and timing considered in the suspicion analysis.
- This Court reversed, holding evasive driving can create reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can evasive driving create reasonable suspicion for a stop? | Starkey argues evasive driving alone does not establish suspicion. | Starkey contends no concrete violation or evidence justifying stop. | Yes; evasive driving can support reasonable suspicion. |
| Is there an objective basis for the stop given no traffic violation observed? | No observable traffic violations; stop not justified. | Evasive conduct, not a mere whim, supports intrusion. | Objective basis exists under totality of circumstances. |
| Was the evasion evidence sufficient when considering the totality of the circumstances? | Fewer factors or innocent explanations undermine suspicion. | Combined evasive acts and context reasonably suggested wrongdoing. | Yes; multiple evasive actions established reasonable suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Herren, 2010 SD 101, 792 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 2010) (totality-of-circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (reasonable suspicion may rely on inferences from observed facts)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (flight near high-crime area supports suspicion)
- State v. Akuba, 2004 SD 94, 686 N.W.2d 406 (S.D. 2004) (low threshold for stop based on articulable facts)
- State v. Noteboom, 2008 SD 114, 758 N.W.2d 457 (S.D. 2008) (application of Wardlow-like reasoning in SD context)
- State v. Thill, 474 N.W.2d 86 (Minn. 1991) (evasively turning from a roadblock can create suspicion)
- State v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1989) (evading officer may support reasonable suspicion; context matters)
- State v. Ballard, 2000 SD 134, 617 N.W.2d 837 (S.D. 2000) (suspicion must be objectively reasonable and fact-specific)