SD Supreme Court: Avoiding DUI checkpoint doesn't justify stop

Talk about it

PIERRE (AP) — A driver's avoidance of a sobriety checkpoint does not by itself give police sufficient reason to stop a vehicle and check whether the driver is intoxicated, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court noted that it had ruled in a 1991 case that avoiding a checkpoint gave law officers the reasonable suspicion required to justify a traffic stop. The justices said they now agree with recent federal court rulings to hold that turning away from a checkpoint is not by itself a sufficient reason for a stop.

The Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the drunken driving conviction of Ryan Lee Rademaker, who was stopped after he turned onto another road before reaching a checkpoint near Milbank in November 2010. In a unanimous ruling the court said the law officer who arrested Rademaker had other reasons to justify the stop.

Rademaker had argued his constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure were violated by the stop. He said he was not avoiding the checkpoint, but was following his usual route to take a friend home. He argued that a test that showed his blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit should not be used against him because the stop was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court said a law officer was justified in stopping Rademaker because the officer knew Rademaker had avoided a checkpoint at 1 a.m. and saw him making a wide turn and driving at an excessive speed for the road conditions.

Tags: dui checkpoints, drunken driving, traffic stop, news, updates, state, crime, courts, dui, police