PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - In a story May 28 about a Supreme Court hearing on implied consent, The Associated Press omitted the title and first name of Fiero’s lawyer, Ronald Parsons.
A corrected version of the story is below:
Supreme Court holds hearing on implied consent
State Supreme Court hears arguments on implied consent law for drug, alcohol testing
By NORA HERTEL
Associated Press
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - The South Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday regarding the constitutionality of a state law that says drivers consent to drug and alcohol testing upon getting behind the wheel.
Lawyers for Shauna Fierro, whose DUI case led to the current challenge, say South Dakota’s 2006 law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches.
But the attorney general’s office says the so-called implied consent law, which allows for blood to be drawn from motorists suspected of drunken driving without permission or warrant, reduces a suspect’s expectation of privacy and is constitutional as along as the search is not deemed unreasonable.
At issue is whether an April 2013 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said police must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken driving suspects. Judges in South Dakota have disagreed whether that ruling renders the state’s law unconstitutional.
“This case is a standard DUI case,” Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Hallem told the Supreme Court justices. “If you find that this search is unconstitutional, the statute is unconstitutional and the Legislature’s going to have to go back and decide what to do in order to combat drunken driving on the roads.”
In the case that led to the current challenge, Fierro was arrested for driving a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. Fierro had a blood test taken at the Meade County Jail. A lower court ruled to exclude blood test results in the Fierro case at the request of her attorneys - a decision influenced by the ruling from the nation’s high court.
In a statement before the hearing, Attorney General Marty Jackley said that in the past, the Supreme Court has upheld the warrantless withdrawal of blood from people arrested for DUIs.
Fiero’s lawyer, Ronald Parsons, says there’s a difference between breath tests and more invasive blood tests. He also said South Dakota’s justices don’t have to rule that the whole law is unconstitutional.
Chief Justice David Gilbertson said many people are hoping for a clear line when the justices make their ruling at a later date.
But Parsons said there is no clear line and each case has to be considered on its own.
“I think the court can leave the statute intact,” Parsons said, as long as people have a right to refuse the test.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.