City of Sioux Falls v. Ugland, 9874
| Decision Date | 08 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 9874,9874 |
| Citation | 109 N.W.2d 144,79 S.D. 134 |
| Parties | CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Everett J. UGLAND, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Anderson & Weisensee, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.
John E. Burke, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and respondent.
The defendant was found guilty in Municipal Court of the City of Sioux Falls of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of an ordinance of that city. Trial was to a jury. From the judgment imposing a penalty of $300, sentence of 90 days in the county jail and prohibiting operation of a motor vehicle within the city for one year, defendant has appealed.
Appellant contends that his arrest was unlawful because the arresting officer had no warrant for his arrest; that evidence procured by the unlawful arrest was inadmissible as having been obtained in violation of the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure; and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
About 9:30 p. m. on November 29, 1959, James R. Jorgenson of the Sioux Falls police force was notified of an accident near the intersection of 17th Street and Cliff Avenue. Upon his arrival at the scene of the accident, the officer found a Chevrolet automobile 'on the parking * * * with the right front corner * * * smashed and * * * up against a tree.' The officer went to defendant's home. He found defendant sitting on a davenport and there were 'lacerations on his face and a considerable amount of blood on the front of his jacket.' The police officer testified that when defendant was asked to accompany him back to the scene of the accident he answered that he didn't know why he should; that witness explained that to complete an accident report it was necessary to obtain all the circumstances leading up to the accident; that defendant then replied that he would return with the officer; and that after completing his investigation at the scene of the accident and a written report witness and defendant went to the police department. The police officer further testified:
The blood sample was thereafter analyzed and showed .25 per cent by weight of alcohol. Subsequently, about a month later, a complaint charging defendant with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor was filed. A warrant of arrest was thereafter issued and defendant was taken into custody.
Defendant filed a motion in the court below to suppress the results of the analysis of his blood on the ground that the means by which plaintiff came into possession of the blood sample was not an incident to a lawful arrest and constituted an unlawful, and therefore an unreasonable, search and seizure in violation of the state constitution, Section 11, Art. VI, which provides that 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated * * *.' The court denied the motion.
Defendant argues that the evidence in question should have been suppressed as inadmissible under the decision of this court in State v. Gooder, 57 S.D. 619, 234 N.W. 610. The so-called federal exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence was adopted in that case. Subsequent to the Gooder case, a statute was enacted in effect modifying such exclusionary rule....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Buckingham
...1 A contention similar to the one raised by the defendant in the instant case was apparently not advanced in City of Sioux Falls v. Ugland, 79 S.D. 134, 109 N.W.2d 144, or in State v. Werlinger, 84 S.D. 282, 170 N.W.2d 470, wherein it was held the defendants had expressly consented to submi......
-
State v. Baych
...as bearing on this issue, see People v. Garcia, 227 Cal.App.2d 345, 38 Cal.Rptr. 670, 673, and citations, and City of Sioux Falls v. Ugland, 79 S.D. 134, 109 N.W.2d 144, 145. There is no contention herein that defendant's intoxication was not IV. When a lawful arrest is made of one operatin......
-
State ex rel. Ruffing v. Jameson
...it was and so instructed the jury. This instruction was binding on it and the parties and became the law of the case, City of Sioux Falls v. Ugland, S.D., 109 N.W.2d 144, subject to appropriate review. It is of no concern now if objections were or were not made to the instructions. Defendan......
-
State v. Werlinger
...and is not a violation of similar provisions of the South Dakota Constitution, Art. VI, §§ 2, 7 and 9. See City of Sioux Falls v. Ugland, 1961, 79 S.D. 134, 109 N.W.2d 144. It is further contended the result of the test was inadmissible as at the time of the request by the deputy sheriff, d......