State v. Slepikas
| Decision Date | 21 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | #29427 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kevin SLEPIKAS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
JASON R. RAVNSBORG, Attorney General, JONATHAN K. VAN PATTEN, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.
TUCKER J. VOLESKY of Volesky Law Office, Huron, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellant.
[¶1.] During a driving under the influence (DUI) investigation, law enforcement asked Kevin Slepikas (Slepikas) if he would consent to a blood draw. Slepikas twice answered, "okay" in response to the officer's request to draw his blood. His blood was then drawn without a warrant. Slepikas moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the blood draw on the basis that it was taken without a warrant or his valid consent. The magistrate court denied Slepikas's motion to suppress and subsequently found Slepikas guilty of driving a vehicle with alcohol in the blood in violation of SDCL 32-23-1(1). Slepikas appealed his conviction to the circuit court, and the circuit court affirmed the magistrate court's decision. Slepikas appeals the circuit court's decision, arguing that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard of review and erred in concluding that he provided valid, voluntary consent to the blood draw. We affirm.
[¶2.] On September 28, 2019, Sergeant Phillip Van Diepen (Sergeant Van Diepen) of the Huron Police Department stopped a vehicle driven by Kevin Slepikas at around 2:05 a.m. After approaching the vehicle, Sergeant Van Diepen observed an odor of alcohol and several other signs indicating that Slepikas was intoxicated. Sergeant Van Diepen had Slepikas perform field sobriety tests. During the investigation, several other law enforcement officers arrived at the scene. Law enforcement administered a preliminary breath test which indicated a .116% breath-alcohol content. They arrested Slepikas around 2:25 a.m. on suspicion of driving under the influence. Officers handcuffed Slepikas and performed a search incident to arrest. During the search, officers offered to retrieve Slepikas's cellphone from his vehicle and to leave in his vehicle any items that would be prohibited in the jail.
[¶3.] While officers were performing the search, Sergeant Van Diepen said to Slepikas, Slepikas responded, "Okay." Sergeant Van Diepen then asked, He proceeded to explain to Slepikas the booking procedure for a first-offense DUI and then stated, "So you're good to give a sample of blood." Slepikas again responded, "Okay." Law enforcement then transported Slepikas to the jail, where a medical professional drew his blood without a warrant. The blood draw occurred at approximately 2:43 a.m., and subsequent testing indicated a .124 blood-alcohol content.
[¶4.] The State filed a complaint and an information charging Slepikas with driving a vehicle with alcohol in his blood ( SDCL 32-23-1(1) ). Slepikas asked the magistrate court to suppress the test results obtained from the blood draw. In support of his motion, Slepikas filed an affidavit relating facts about his personal history. The affidavit states that he is a fifty-eight-year-old high school graduate with no criminal record. It further states that he has a "learning disability" and receives both social security disability benefits and assistance from the Center for Independence, an organization that provides aid to individuals with "developmental disabilities." Slepikas argued that suppression was warranted because law enforcement performed the blood draw without a warrant or valid, voluntary consent.
[¶5.] At the suppression hearing, Sergeant Van Diepen testified, and it appears the magistrate court viewed a video of the incident.2 In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the magistrate court noted that Slepikas "has certain intellectual disabilities" but stated that Slepikas presented no evidence showing that his limitations prevented him from understanding law enforcement's request to draw his blood. The court found that law enforcement did not inform Slepikas that he had the right to refuse consent, but they also did not assert that they had authority to take a blood sample without consent or suggest that he had impliedly consented. The magistrate court noted that Slepikas was in custody but found that Slepikas did not give consent under duress. The court denied the motion to suppress after finding that Slepikas gave his consent knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
[¶6.] Before the court trial, the parties filed two stipulations. One stipulation related the facts surrounding Slepikas's blood draw and the results obtained from the blood draw. The other stipulation related the facts that had been presented at the suppression hearing. In each stipulation, Slepikas reserved the right to object to the admission of the blood-alcohol test results on the basis that law enforcement took his blood without a warrant or his valid, voluntary consent. The magistrate court found Slepikas guilty of driving a vehicle with alcohol in his blood in violation of SDCL 32-23-1(1) and imposed a suspended sentence. Slepikas appealed the conviction to the circuit court. The magistrate court stayed his sentence pending the outcome of the appeal. On appeal, Slepikas argued that the magistrate court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the blood draw.
[¶7.] During oral arguments to the circuit court, Slepikas argued that the circuit court's standard of review for the issue was de novo. He asserted that, because the parties stipulated to the facts leading up to the blood draw, all that remained was the legal question of whether Slepikas provided voluntary consent. The State responded that clearly erroneous was the standard of review for consent.
[¶8.] Slepikas next argued to the circuit court that he did not provide voluntary consent based on his characteristics, including his lack of experience with law enforcement's procedures and his "intellectual" or "developmental" disability. He further claimed law enforcement created a coercive environment by involving multiple law enforcement officers, subjecting him to field sobriety tests, asking him to provide consent while searching and handcuffing him, failing to provide him Miranda warnings, exerting a show of authority, and using leading questions. He claimed his answers of "okay" were merely passive responses.
[¶9.] At the hearing, the circuit court noted that the magistrate court had the benefit of listening to the witness's testimony, reviewing a video of the arrest, and determining the credibility of the witness and the truthfulness of his testimony. It noted that Slepikas twice responded, "okay" to the question of whether he would agree to a blood draw, and Slepikas did not present any evidence to the magistrate court showing that his disability affected his ability to understand what law enforcement was asking him at the time of his arrest. It affirmed the magistrate court's decision.
[¶10.] Slepikas appeals, raising two issues which we restate:
[¶11.] Slepikas notes that the parties stipulated to the factual record for the court trial and for any subsequent appeal. He claims, due to their stipulations, the sole legal issue before the circuit court and now this Court was whether Slepikas provided valid, voluntary consent. Accordingly, he argues the circuit court erred by giving deference to the magistrate court's determinations; specifically, it erred by noting that the magistrate court had the benefit of viewing the video of the arrest. He contends that both the circuit court and this Court should apply the de novo standard of review because the facts are undisputed, and he challenged the search under the Fourth Amendment.
[¶12.] "[W]e review a motion to suppress evidence obtained in the absence of a warrant de novo[.]" State v. Medicine , 2015 S.D. 45, ¶ 5, 865 N.W.2d 492, 495. However, we review a lower court's underlying factual findings for clear error. Id. ; see also State v. Almond , 511 N.W.2d 572, 573–74 (S.D. 1994) (). "Whether a valid consent to search exists is generally a question of fact for the trial court." State v. Akuba , 2004 S.D. 94, ¶ 25, 686 N.W.2d 406, 417 (citation omitted); see also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 227, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2047–48, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973) (). "We will declare a finding of fact clearly erroneous only if we are definitely and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made." Lien v. Lien , 2004 S.D. 8, ¶ 14, 674 N.W.2d 816, 822.
[¶13.] The magistrate court decided the factual issue of whether Slepikas provided valid, voluntary consent after hearing the testimony of a live witness and reviewing a video of the incident. Slepikas relies upon the parties’ stipulation to argue that these factual findings can be reviewed de novo. His argument fails because the magistrate court's findings were based, at least in part, on live witness testimony and a video recording that was...
To continue reading
Request your trial