*1 sе, relying negligent per on Lovell v. eral Coop., N.W.2d 396 Dakota, Oahe Elec. STATE of South Plaintiff
1986). standards, safety spoke Lovell Appellаnt, Sawmill, 426 N.W.2d did Stevens v. Wood (S.D.1988). Application negligence HEJHAL, Gary L.
per inappropriate. se to this situation is Defendant Appelleе. concept applicable Even were the outside context, SDCL has no safety 21-47-8 No. 16251. bearing on this case. Supreme Court оf South Dakota. acting First Federal within its rights mortgage, has Phipps no Argued Feb. 1989. damages. claim The trial court’s valid April Decided decision is аffirmed.
WUEST, C.J., MILLER, J.,
concur. SABERS, JJ.,
MORGAN and dissent.
MORGAN, majority
I dissent from the wherein view that, by
it is determined “doctrine
redundancy,” provisions 21- of SDCL inapplicable mortgage
47-8 are to a exe- provisions under
cuted SDCL ch.
21-49, Term Redemption the Short Act. majority supporting us to no cites au-
thority application for the of this doctrine. respect application
With redundancy case,
doctrine to this assum-
ing that is proceeding Bank under 21-49, noteworthy
SDCL ch. I find it 21-49-13(1) provides, pertinent
SDCL
part: “The may notice [of default]
concurrently with notice of the mort-
gagor’s right existing to cure defaults.” (Emphasis added.) This aрpears statute 21-47-8, under rights
refer SDCL
thus avoiding the so-called doctrine of re-
dundancy.
I am to state authorized that Justice joins
SABERS in this dissent. Point, Slattery, plaintiff
John Elk appellant. McCulloch, Vermillion,
James for defen- appellee. dant and .821 *2 MILLER, and therefore Justice. reasonable not unconstitu- agree. This recently tional. We court a appeal, In we hold that this Flittie, 1, in 425 stated N.W.2d 5-6 of of a inventory search the contents wallet (S.D.1988), that: jail booking procedure did during a routine VI, 11 of the good faith, not violate Article South noninvestigatory inventory § a Dakota Constitution. reasonable, search conducted to policies standardized and uniform ...
FACTS to need not be restricted articles which for Gary Hejhal (Hejhal) was arrested plain are within the view of the officer’s driving influence of alco- while vision. taken to the local sheriffs hol. He was holding This our modified earlier decision booking being placed in prior office II, Opperman supra, in which stated that booking proce- of routine jail. his noninvestigative рolice warrantless inven- dure, an arresting officer made invento- the (of automobiles) tory searches must be re- belongings, personal includ- ry Hejhal’s safeguarding stricted to those articles inventory ing an individual items plain are view of the which within officer’s in his contained Flittiе Applying in vision. the facts inventory, performing the the ar- While case, we believe that the trial court in erred resting plastic small discоvered a officer methamphetamine. suppressing the bag containing powdery a substance. white Supreme As noted the United States analysis re- substance Chemical 640, Illinois v. in Court 462 U.S. methamphetamine. it vealed that was 2605, (1983), S.Ct. 77 L.Ed.2d 103 65 “[a] charged possession Hejhal later was with so-called search is not an inde- pretrial a controlled substance. At legal concept an pendent but rather inci- hearing, suppress Hejhal motions moved following step arrest dental administrative arguing that this evidence preceding incarceration. To determine an unreasonable his wallet constituted search unreasonable whether the VI, [is] Article 11 of the South search undеr § its must intrusion on the individ- court, ‘balanc[e] rely- Dakota trial Constitution. ual’s Fourth Amendment interests v. State this court’s decision legitimate governmentаl promotion (S.D.1976) ” 644, at 103 at II),1 granted Hejhal’s motion interests.’ 462 U.S. S.Ct. (iOpperman Delaware 2608, (quoting 77 70 holding L.Ed.2d at suppress the that its evidence Prousе, 654, 1391, 648, discovery was the result of an unconstitu- v. 440 U.S. 99 S.Ct. 660, (1979)). grant- 1396, inventory search. This court 59 L.Ed.2d Un- tional petition appeal. searching for intermediate an inci- ed State’s arrestee der and remand. booking jail We reverse into is consistent dent his (1) following legitimate objectives:
ISSUE
while he
protecting
the arrestee’s
jail; (2) protecting
police from
is
A
INVENTORY
WHETHER
POLICE
they
groundless claims that
ade-
OF A DE-
OF THE CONTENTS
SEARCH
prop-
quately safeguardеd the defendant’s
DURING JAIL
FENDANT’S WALLET
(3) safeguarding
facility
erty;
the detention
AR-
PROCEDURE VIOLATES
BOOKING
weapons
by preventing the introduction
VI,
11
DAKO-
THE
TICLE
OF
SOUTH
§
contraband;
(4) ascertaining or
veri-
or
TA CONSTITUTION.
identity
person arrested.
fying DECISION
Lafayette’s
analysis
was also reaffirmed
Supreme Court
by the United States
argues that the officer’s warrant-
State
Bertine,
v.
Colorado
un-
U.S.
search of
wallet was not
less
might provide
gested
case
this court
1. We note that
the trial court’s dеcision
prior
holding
appropriate
reconsideration of our
facts for the
to this court’s
II,
holding
sug-
infra,
the trial court even
(1987),
сited with power
tie. II be again see away. whittled
Contents of the wallet are not within
plain view. This State Court has Hejhal argues it would agree have been more practice might While intrusive, be less scope rеasonable and State’s intrusion place we will not ourselves in would have been if minimized the wallet and its position second-guessing law еnforcement contents would been inventoried as one agencies practical as to what administrative or, alternativеly, item if the wallet had been method will best deter theft and false claims tape Hejhal’s signature placed sealed with employees preserve security tape on the a manner such that the removal supra. the stationhouse. tape signature. would obliterate the