State v. Tenold, 937 N.W.2d 6

At 2:35 a.m. Officer McKeon followed and stopped Tenold’s vehicle after observing the center (third) brake lamp emit a white light when the brakes were applied. The vehicle’s two required outer brake lights functioned and displayed red.
McKeon obtained Tenold’s consent to search the vehicle; the search produced no contraband at the scene. Tenold sat in McKeon’s patrol car during the search.
After returning to the station, McKeon searched his patrol vehicle and found a small foil ball under the front passenger seat (where Tenold had sat); a field test presumptively identified methamphetamine. McKeon then arrested Tenold and found marijuana on his person.
McKeon prepared an affidavit for a hotel-room search warrant that combined (a) information from hotel security (third‑hand tip of frequent foot traffic) and (b) the foil ball and on-person marijuana discovered after the stop; a warrant issued and the hotel search yielded drugs and paraphernalia.
Tenold moved to suppress, arguing the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion because SDCL 32‑17‑8.1 only requires two brake lights to meet color/actuation requirements; the circuit court denied suppression, a jury convicted, and Tenold appealed.
The Supreme Court held the stop was unjustified, suppressed the evidence derived from the stop and the warrant (after excising tainted information), reversed the convictions, and remanded.

Issue	State's Argument	Tenold's Argument	Held
Legality of the traffic stop based on a third brake light emitting white	Officer reasonably (objectively) believed white light violated SDCL 32‑17‑8.1; Heien permits reasonable mistakes of law	SDCL 32‑17‑8.1 requires only two stop lamps to meet the red‑light/actuation rules (per Lerma); a white third lamp does not violate the statute	Lerma controls; officer’s belief was not objectively reasonable; the stop was unjustified at inception
Reasonable suspicion based on tip + time/location (totality of circumstances)	Tip that Tenold was suspected of dealing drugs plus late‑night travel from the hotel supported suspicion to stop and investigate	Tip was third‑hand, lacked timeframe, lacked corroboration, and the observed conduct (leaving hotel at 2:39 a.m.) was innocent	Totality of circumstances did not supply a particularized and objective basis for suspicion; no reasonable suspicion
Admissibility of evidence from foil ball, on‑person marijuana, and hotel search (fruit of the poisonous tree)	Warrant affidavit contained independent information (hotel security tip) sufficient for probable cause; evidence admissible	Evidence discovered after unlawful stop is tainted and must be suppressed; warrant relied on tainted evidence	Foil ball and marijuana were fruits of the illegal stop and suppressed; after excising tainted material, the remaining affidavit lacked probable cause for the warrant, so hotel evidence was also suppressed

Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (Fourth Amendment allows objectively reasonable mistakes of law)
State v. Lerma, 884 N.W.2d 749 (S.D. 2016) (SDCL 32‑17‑8.1 display/actuation requirements apply to the two required stop lamps)
Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (standards for reasonable suspicion and brief investigative stops)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (probable cause for warrants judged by totality and informant veracity/basis of knowledge)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree and attenuation principles)
State v. Raveydts, 691 N.W.2d 290 (S.D. 2004) (anonymity, corroboration, and informant detail affect probable cause analysis)
State v. Boll, 651 N.W.2d 710 (S.D. 2002) (review of warrant sufficiency and redaction of tainted information)