According to a recent article from the Rapid City Journal, the “implied consent” law in South Dakota—the law that allows police to perform blood tests on suspected drunk or drugged drivers without consent—will soon be under review for constitutionality. Attorney General Marty Jackley requested the review, and the South Dakota Supreme Court will now set itself to deciding whether or not “implied consent” is constitutional.
In South Dakota and most other states, licensed driver’s give “implied consent” to blood testing when they receive a driver’s license. This means that, under the law, police may administer blood testing when a driver is pulled over for a suspected DWI in South Dakota, without a warrant or the driver’s consent. If the driver refuses the test, he or she is subject to automatic penalties—and the refusal can be used as evidence against the driver in court.
The Attorney General requested the review after last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Missouri case, which determined that there should be an attempt to obtain a search warrant before blood testing is performed on a suspected drunk driver. There is some question as to whether the ruling in that case means that South Dakota’s law is similarly unconstitutional.
For more current news and information, connect with Zimmer, Duncan & Cole LLP on Facebook—or check out our YouTube Channel. And, if you have pressing questions after a DWI arrest, reach out to our team at 888-733-2992 for immediate answers.
Post a Comment to "Implied Consent in South Dakota"To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."