ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

South Dakota implied consent law to be scrutinized

PIERRE (AP) -- Attorney General Marty Jackley says the South Dakota Supreme Court has accepted his request to determine the constitutionality of the state's implied consent law for drunken driving enforcement.

PIERRE (AP) - Attorney General Marty Jackley says the South Dakota Supreme Court has accepted his request to determine the constitutionality of the state's implied consent law for drunken driving enforcement.

The law allows for blood to be drawn from motorists suspected of drunken driving without their permission or a warrant. The blood tests are used to determine the amount of alcohol in a driver's system.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in a Missouri case that 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 South Dakota's law unconstitutional. State Supreme Court justices will now decide.

 

Related Topics: POLICE
What To Read Next
Members Only
"It’s a non-meandered stream with plats along the edge of the canal, and the bottom of the canal remains with the original owner,” Jim Taylor said, noting Chuck Mauszycki owns the canal land.
“Why would we create new major programs, when we can’t even fund the programs that we have?” a public education lobbyist said in opposition to Noem's three-year, $15 million proposal.
"If we show we are complacent with areas like this that clearly need addressing, we’re not improving as a city,” Mitchell Republic Editor Luke Hagen said during the city council meeting discussion.
Discussion will take place during the 6 p.m. meeting on Monday at City Hall