LAKE ANDES -- The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Tuesday against a woman whose attorney argued she could not be convicted of drunken driving because a statute necessary for the crime was mistakenly repealed in 2012.
Nicole Mundy-Geidd was arrested and charged with drunken driving in 2013 in Charles Mix County. Her attorney, Tim Whalen, of Lake Andes, has argued the law prohibiting driving under the influence no longer applies to any cases involving alcohol.
His argument is based on a decades-old statute that says it is not a crime simply to be drunk. Specifically, South Dakota Codified Law 34-20A-93 says, in part: " ... neither the state nor any county, municipality, charter unit of government, or other political subdivision may adopt or enforce a law, ordinance, resolution, or rule having the force of law that includes drinking, drunkenness, or being found in an intoxicated condition as one of the elements of the offense giving rise to a criminal or civil penalty or sanction." That statute was repealed this year but was in effect when Mundy-Geidd was arrested.
South Dakota Codified Law 34-20A-95, allowed for criminal charges in cases involving drunken driving or being drunk while carrying a firearm. That section of the law, though, was repealed as part of a broader effort by lawmakers in 2012 to remove outdated or unnecessary laws.
There was, and still is, an entirely separate chapter containing numerous laws about drunken driving.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mundy-Geidd was found guilty of drunken driving by a magistrate judge in 2013 after she attempted to have the case dismissed based on Whalen's argument. She appealed to circuit court, but the motion to dismiss her case was rejected again. That's when she appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
In a nine-page decision, the South Dakota Supreme Court found the Legislature undoubtedly did not intend to end the enforcement of the drunken driving laws in the state when it repealed the other laws in 2012.
"We finally observe that Mundy-Geidd's interpretation produces absurd and unreasonable results," the decision says. "Under Mundy-Geidd's interpretations, numerous public safety statutes involving alcohol would have been repealed by implication."
That could include many laws, such as those prohibiting vehicular homicide while under the influence of alcohol and operating a boat or aircraft while under the influence of alcohol, as well as laws prohibiting minors from consuming alcohol or operating vehicles while under the influence of alcohol, the decision says.
"Without an express repealer, it is unreasonable and absurd to believe that the 2012 Legislature intended such a wholesale repeal of these important public safety statutes," the decision says.
