State v. Quartier

2008 SD 62 (2008) · Supreme Court of South Dakota · July 9, 2008 · No. No. 24518

Summary

Ryan Eldon Quartier appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an investigatory stop of a van. The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the officers had reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances, including the van's repeated visits to a known drug suspect's residence and the occupants' interaction with him. The court affirmed Quartier's convictions and the denial of the suppression motion.

Court
Supreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the Court
Zinter, Justice; Gilbertson, Chief Justice; Konenkamp, Justice; Meierhenry, Justice; Sabers, Justice
Jurisdiction
South Dakota
Decision date
July 9, 2008
Docket number
No. 24518
Procedural posture
Appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained during an investigatory stop, following a court trial and convictions for possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Standard of review
Reasonable-suspicion determinations are reviewed de novo; historical factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and reviewing courts give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law-enforcement officers.
Precedential value
Published South Dakota Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Ryan Eldon Quartier v. State of South Dakota
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurefourth amendmentsearch and seizureprobable causesuppression of evidence

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawsearch and seizure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances to conduct an investigatory stop of the van.
  2. Whether the reasonable suspicion of the investigating detective was sufficient to justify the stop by the assisting officer.
  3. Whether the evidence discovered after the stop and arrest should have been suppressed.

Holdings

  1. The two visits by the van to the residence of a known drug suspect, including a conversation between Navarro and the van's occupants, together with the surrounding drug investigation and the officer's experience, created reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring and justified the stop.
  2. The investigating detective's reasonable suspicion justified his request that the assisting officer stop the van.

Key quotations

Reasonable suspicion is a common-sense and non-technical concept dealing with the practical considerations of everyday life. (¶10)
Instead, the appropriate analysis requires an examination of the "totality of the circumstances" to see whether the officer has a "particularized and objective basis" for suspecting legal wrongdoing. (¶16)
Once Walsh reached that conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances, he was not required to consider and discard individual, possible innocent explanations for each of the van's visits. (¶19)

Factual background

Sioux Falls narcotics officers were conducting surveillance of Jose Navarro's residence while executing a search warrant based on information that Navarro was distributing crystal methamphetamine. A red van not listed in the warrant stopped at the residence, and Navarro spoke with its occupants; the van returned within approximately one-half to one and one-half hours. Based on the two visits, the conversation, Navarro's suspected drug activity, and his training and experience, Detective Walsh directed another officer to stop the van. Quartier was a passenger, was arrested after officers learned his license was suspended, and was found with a glass pipe containing methamphetamine residue.

Procedural history

Quartier was stopped as a passenger in a van observed visiting the residence of a suspected drug distributor. After officers discovered that his driver's license was suspended, they arrested him and found a methamphetamine-positive glass pipe during a search incident to arrest. The circuit court denied his suppression motion, found him guilty after a court trial, and imposed a five-year prison sentence, all suspended. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…