Summary
The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed whether a deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop Steven Alexander Stanage based on a report from Hardee’s employees that he might be driving under the influence. The court held that the conclusory allegation, without the informants’ underlying observations or independent corroboration by the deputy, did not provide a particularized and objective basis for the stop. The court reversed the denial of Stanage’s motion to suppress the resulting evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Deputy Kriese had reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to justify the traffic stop based on the information relayed by dispatch.
- Whether evidence obtained during the stop and subsequent blood draw had to be suppressed as the product of an unconstitutional seizure.
Holdings
- A conclusory report that a driver may be intoxicated, even when made by identifiable informants and accompanied by an accurate vehicle description and license-plate number, did not provide Deputy Kriese with a particularized and objective basis to suspect criminal activity where the informants' observations supporting their conclusion were not communicated to him and he observed no independent suspicious conduct.
- Because the stop was unsupported by reasonable suspicion, the stop was unlawful and evidence obtained from the stop, including evidence from the subsequent blood draw, was the product of an illegal search or seizure.
Key quotations
“The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person.” (¶ 12)
“Under Navarette, a conclusory allegation of drunk or reckless driving is insufficient to support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” (¶ 19)
Factual background
Shortly before 2:00 a.m., Stanage ordered food at a Hardee's drive-through window. An employee observed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and difficulty grasping a beverage, but the shift supervisor who called police reported only that a potentially drunk driver was at the window, provided the vehicle's license-plate number, and said employees were delaying the driver's departure. A nearby deputy stopped Stanage immediately after he left the restaurant without independently observing erratic driving or other suspicious conduct. The deputy then smelled alcohol, administered field sobriety tests, arrested Stanage, and obtained a blood sample showing a blood alcohol content of 0.204 percent.
Procedural history
Stanage was charged with driving under the influence. The magistrate court denied his suppression motion and convicted him. The circuit court affirmed the magistrate court's decision. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop and that evidence obtained as a result of the stop was unlawfully obtained.