South Dakota Must Strengthen DUI Laws in Wake of Rising Incidents with SAFE ROADS Act
by State Rep. Mary Fitzgerald
District 31, Lawrence County, SD
Drunk driving continues to be a dangerous problem in South Dakota. Data collected from 2021 shows that 5,654 people were arrested in South Dakota for DUI, this was an increase of 12.7% from 2020. The data also showed that twenty four percent of intoxicated drivers were repeat offenders. It’s clear the threat to public safety is both real and growing.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a study by gathering information from states regarding repeat DUI offenders. It showed that one out of eight drunk drivers involved in fatality related crashes had been arrested for drunk driving within the last three years.
In January 2024, I’ll introduce a bill before the South Dakota State legislature to eliminate “presumptive probation” for a third offense felony DUI. Right now, offenders will receive a presumption of probation for this crime. This puts our families at risk when we travel on our roads and highways.
My bill further addresses an inconsistency with our DUI laws. As it stands, the law requires a mandatory two-year prison sentence for a fourth DUI offense, yet a conflicting statute (SDCL 22-6-11) allows for “presumptive probation” for the same crime. My intention is to correct this error by adding that a fourth offense DUI to the list of crimes that are not eligible for presumptive probation; that was the original intent of the law.
Our government’s duty to safeguard its citizens is paramount… and this includes the prevention of avoidable tragedies on our roads and highways. It’s the core obligation of government to protect its citizens and this responsibility includes the prevention of repeat drunk driving crimes.
Mary does a nice job.
One loophole most aren’t aware of. If a person is driving withiut a license and is obviously drunk, he can refuse a breathalyzer test, since without a license he has not given implied consent to be tested. Therefore, no DUI and the lesser offense of driving wiithout a license.
I was surprised to hear this. Is this correct?
Sounds like it was dreamt up by a Sovereign Citizen. There’s plenty of ways to either get a breathalyzer done or have a blood draw pulled.
You really believe that in a state like SD, with legislators going all googly eyed trying to fill up this giant new prison, they would allow a loophole like this?
This was an issue in the 80’s, where if a PBT was refused, they could revoke a license. However, if evidence was withheld (you not allowing blood, breath, etc. to be taken), it was tough to prove in court and get a conviction on the charge. Sometimes people would just end up with a revoked license for a year, no criminal convictions.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/553/
Then, SD state law said, once we arrest you, we get to take your blood without a warrant. This stopped the 80’s loophole. However, this was challenged in 2014 with State v. Fierro (https://casetext.com/case/state-v-fierro-14). Following this ruling, the state now made a search warrant part of the SOP with DUI suspicions.
In your scenario, sus would be booked on driving w/o a license, and suspicion of drunk driving and a judge would put a rubber stamp on a search warrant if they refused. Blood would be drawn and entered as evidence, and if drunk, a conviction would be attained.
How about someone just puts out an IM to ban alcohol in the state? I would vote yes just for the comedy.
(Just a reminder that more than one link in a comment kicks things to spam.. – PP)
You can get a search warrant signed by a judge and do a blood withdrawal.
Was the increase from 2020 due to people leaving their homes after the shut downs?
Rep. Fitzgerald is one of the hardest-working (and most effective) legislators in the chamber. Thanks for your advocacy, for making a difference.
Comparable to an endorsement from George Santos.
I’ll submit myself as a test subject to test effects on driving ability while under the influence of cannabis.
Alcohol is really bad. Like .. really really bad in many ways. It’s crazy to me, assuming the research I’m seeing is correct, that it can be purchased on any street corner.
I work on a street corner. It can’t be purchased there. So the research you (didn’t) cite, is wrong.
Here’s a thought…require driver’s education to get a full driver’s license. 100 hours of class time and 100 hours of drive time.