Did You Know That South Dakota Police Need An Actual Reason To Pull You Over

It might come as a surprise to some, but police officers cannot pull you over for any reason. A police officer's mistaken belief that you committed a traffic offense is not justification for being pulled over, and any evidence obtained as a result of the wrongful search should be suppressed.

Imagine the following scenario: you are driving down the highway, and you notice a police officer behind you with is lights flashing. Unsure of why he is pulling you over, you nonetheless pull over to the shoulder. The officer then suspects you of further criminal activity, and arrests you. During the search after your arrest, the officer finds incriminating evidence, and you are charged with a crime. Here is where it gets interesting: the initial offense for which you were stopped for doesn’t exist.

It seems fundamentally unfair that a person may be charged with a crime based on evidence obtained a result of a violation of a non-existent traffic ordinance. So, what should the outcome be?

In fact, the South Dakota Supreme Court recently tackled facts very similar to the example given above on December 8, 2010 in State v. Wright. In this case, the Defendant was pulled over by a State Trooper while driving on Interstate 90. The Trooper believed that the Defendant’s failure to dim his headlights as he was passed by the Trooper violated state statute, and decided to stop the Defendant. As the Trooper approached the Defendant’s car, he noticed a strong odor of burnt marijuana, and then questioned the Defendant. The Trooper placed the Defendant in the patrol car, searched the Defendant’s car, and discovered marijuana. In fact, the Defendant’s failure to dim his headlights was not illegal. According to SDCL 32-17-7, failure to dim your lights is only an offense when the individual overtakes another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or meets another vehicle travelling the opposite direction, but not when the individual himself is overtaken by another car.

At trial, the Defendant argued that his failure to dim his headlights was not a violation of South Dakota law, and therefore that the Trooper did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle.

In general, for a police officer to pull a person over, the officer must have either a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, or have observed a traffic violation. The observation of a traffic violation gives an officer probable cause to stop a vehicle. Reasonable suspicion is when the officer has specific and articulable facts which reasonably indicate a criminal activity is afoot. Once reasonable suspiction arises, the officer may stop the vehicle to confirm or discount that suspicion. Probable cause, on the other hand, exists when the facts would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe if fairly probable a crime has been committed. In this case, the Trooper didn’t suspect criminal activity was afoot, but rather believed that a crime had been committed. Thus, the main question the Court faced in this case was whether the Trooper had probable cause to believe the Defendant violated traffic ordinance.

In most jurisdictions, the rule is that an officer’s mistake of law, no matter how reasonable, cannot provide objectively reasonable grounds for a stop. South Dakota, however, follows the United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which follows the minority rule that states that even if an officer is wrong in his belief that a violation has occurred, the subsequent search will be upheld if the belief was objectively reasonable.

The Court held that the plain language of the statute was clear and unambiguous, and therefore that the Trooper’s mistake of law was not objectively reasonable. Consequently, the Court suppressed the evidence discovered during the stop and subsequent arrest. Thus, the Defendant’s conviction was reversed.

This outcome may seem troublesome to some people. I’d like to take a moment and explain why this outcome is the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, it seems wrong that the Defendant should get off scot-free. Sure, the Defendant didn’t violate a traffic ordinance, but he still had incriminating evidence in his car and was violating the law, right? The reason why the Court in this case decided to suppress the incriminating evidence obtained as a result of a wrongful search is because of the great importance that the Framers of the Constitution placed upon individual liberty.

The Fourth Amendment states that the right of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and that warrants may only be issued upon probable cause. In general, it has been interpreted that a warrantless search is unreasonable. There, however, circumstances when it is permissible for an officer to initiate a search without a warrant, especially when dealing with searches of automobiles.

The exceptions to the general warrant requirement, however, are narrowly and carefully enforced. The courts do not want to encourage warrantless searches, and in order to deter wrongful conduct by police officers, suppress or “throw out” any evidence discovered as a result of the wrongful search. Think about what might happen without this protection. You could be pulled over for any reason whatsoever, and your car could be searched. Having a bad day and looking upset in your car? An officer could pull you over and search your car. Had a long day at work and coming home covered in dirt? An officer could pull you over and search your car. The myriad of traffic offenses out there already give officers ample resources to pull cars over. This protection exists to protect citizens from arbitrary and capricious searches and seizures.

It is also important to remember that when the Supreme Court decides a case, it is not solely concerned with the parties at hand. Courts craft rules which apply to everyone. The result? If you are pulled over for a crime you didn’t commit based on the officer’s mistaken view of the law, any evidence obtained subsequent to that wrongful search cannot be used against you.