State v. Rademaker, No. 26095.

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWILBUR
Citation2012 S.D. 28,813 N.W.2d 174
Docket NumberNo. 26095.
Decision Date18 April 2012
PartiesSTATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ryan Lee RADEMAKER, Defendant and Appellant.

813 N.W.2d 174
2012 S.D. 28

STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Ryan Lee RADEMAKER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 26095.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs on Feb. 14, 2012.
Decided April 18, 2012.


[813 N.W.2d 175]


Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Timothy J. Barnaud, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

George B. Boos of Boos & Grajczyk, LLP, Milbank, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellant.


WILBUR, Justice.

[¶ 1.] Ryan Rademaker appeals his conviction of driving while under the influence of alcohol arguing that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution required the trial court to suppress evidence arising out of the stop of his car. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[¶ 2.] At approximately 1 a.m. on a Sunday morning, Rademaker drove a friend to her home east of Milbank. A police officer and a highway patrol officer were conducting a sobriety checkpoint on the highway Rademaker was traveling. The officers had placed signs with flashing amber lights approximately 100 yards north and south of the checkpoint indicating to drivers that there was a checkpoint ahead.

[¶ 3.] The officers observed Rademaker approach the checkpoint from the north, drive past the northern sign, and turn onto a gravel road which allowed him to travel away from the checkpoint. Rademaker would later testify that he was not avoiding the checkpoint but rather following his usual route when taking his friend home.

[¶ 4.] The highway patrol officer instructed the police officer to make contact with Rademaker to determine why he was avoiding the checkpoint. The police officer later testified that he understood “make contact” to mean he should stop Rademaker's car for avoiding the checkpoint. The police officer also testified that, after he got into his patrol car and followed Rademaker, he observed Rademaker make a wide turn, but that he was unsure if the turn violated the law. Additionally, while

[813 N.W.2d 176]

following Rademaker, the officer observed that Rademaker was driving at an excessive speed for the conditions, perhaps as fast as 70 miles per hour. However, although the trial court noted in its memorandum opinion that it was aware of this observation, it reasoned that because the officer “was unable to testify that he observed the excessive speed prior to activating his red lights,” the observation could not serve as a legal basis for the stop.

[¶ 5.] Approximately three-quarters of a mile east of the highway, the police officer caught up to Rademaker and stopped his car. Upon approaching Rademaker, the police officer noted that Rademaker smelled of alcohol and exhibited various other signs of intoxication. Rademaker later admitted to the police officer that he had been drinking and submitted to a preliminary breath test which indicated his blood alcohol level was .185. A subsequent blood test indicated a blood alcohol level of .182.

[¶ 6.] The police officer arrested Rademaker for driving under the influence. Rademaker moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop arguing that the stop of his car violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. The trial court denied his motion and convicted Rademaker of driving under the influence. Rademaker appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 7.] This Court's standard of review of a denial of a motion to suppress evidence is settled:

A motion to suppress based on an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right is a question of law reviewed de novo. The trial court's factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo. This Court will not be restricted by the trial court's legal rationale.

State v. Wright, 2010 S.D. 91, ¶ 8, 791 N.W.2d 791, 794 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). “In this case, [Rademaker] does not contend that any of the [trial] court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Therefore, we review this matter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • People v. Timmsen, No. 3–12–0481.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 25, 2014
    ...traffic stop).1 Moreover, courts in several other jurisdictions have also rejected the dissent's position. See, e.g., State v, Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174, 177 (S.D. 2012) (“avoidance of a checkpoint alone is insufficient to form a basis for reasonable suspicion”) (Emphasis in original.); Sta......
  • People v. Timmsen, No. 118181.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 24, 2016
    ...pulled off highway and parked after sign for checkpoint, and gave suspicious explanation when approached by officer); State v. Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174 (S.D.2012) (avoiding checkpoint suspicious when coupled with other factors; sufficient other factors here were time of day (1 a.m.) and fa......
  • Hamen v. Hamlin Cnty., #28671
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 10, 2021
    ...was present in the mobile home at the time of entry. Scott , 550 U.S. at 381 n.8, 127 S. Ct. at 1776 n.8. See also State v. Rademaker , 2012 S.D. 28, ¶ 7, 813 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Under our Fourth Amendment review, "[o]nce the facts have been determined ... the application of a legal standard t......
  • State v. Burkett, No. 26812.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 25, 2014
    ...suppress based on an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Rademaker, 2012 S.D. 28, ¶ 7, 813 N.W.2d 174, 176 (quoting State v. Wright, 2010 S.D. 91, ¶ 8, 791 N.W.2d 791, 794). [¶ 44.] The Fourth Amendment of the United State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • People v. Timmsen, No. 3–12–0481.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 25, 2014
    ...traffic stop).1 Moreover, courts in several other jurisdictions have also rejected the dissent's position. See, e.g., State v, Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174, 177 (S.D. 2012) (“avoidance of a checkpoint alone is insufficient to form a basis for reasonable suspicion”) (Emphasis in original.); Sta......
  • People v. Timmsen, No. 118181.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 24, 2016
    ...pulled off highway and parked after sign for checkpoint, and gave suspicious explanation when approached by officer); State v. Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174 (S.D.2012) (avoiding checkpoint suspicious when coupled with other factors; sufficient other factors here were time of day (1 a.m.) and fa......
  • Hamen v. Hamlin Cnty., #28671
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 10, 2021
    ...was present in the mobile home at the time of entry. Scott , 550 U.S. at 381 n.8, 127 S. Ct. at 1776 n.8. See also State v. Rademaker , 2012 S.D. 28, ¶ 7, 813 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Under our Fourth Amendment review, "[o]nce the facts have been determined ... the application of a legal standard t......
  • State v. Burkett, No. 26812.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 25, 2014
    ...suppress based on an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Rademaker, 2012 S.D. 28, ¶ 7, 813 N.W.2d 174, 176 (quoting State v. Wright, 2010 S.D. 91, ¶ 8, 791 N.W.2d 791, 794). [¶ 44.] The Fourth Amendment of the United State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT