And now, some analysis from the SDWC Legal Team

By -
Rick Kreibel, Bob Hurlbut's opponent from the last election (And STOP Amendment supporter) had the following question in the comment section under the blogpost I did on his former opponent's DUI arrest:
I am curious why breathalyzer results are not admissable in court ? news to me, seems odd, why didnt they ask for blood ? could he even stand ??
(Ouch! -pp)

Also reading the prior post and the subsequent comment, recently returned Iraq vet and USD Law Student, Joel Arends had e-mailed me and explained why it could not be used. And since I couldn't say it any better myself, I asked, and he was nice enough to give us his legal analysis (as opposed to having to do it for one of his professors). As you will read, Joel informs us why a breathalyzer result is not admissable in court:
"Generally a PBT, ‘breathalyzer’ test is not admissible in court for the purposes of proving BAC. Due to the rules of evidence the State cannot lay the scientific foundation necessary to validate blood alcohol content (BAC) as determined by someone’s breath. However, a person’s breathalyzer reading is used, along with several other factors, to determine probable cause. A blood test, which is admissible in court, is what the State will use to show a person’s BAC.

In SD the State has the option of charging a suspect in several different ways. One of those ways does not require a blood test. According to SDCL 32-23-1(2), the State may charge a suspect with driving while under the influence of alcohol. This charge is used by the State if it can’t make the .08 blood test limit stick or if there were problems with the blood draw, etc…

Of course when the State does a valid blood draw it will charge a suspect using SDCL 32-23-1(1) which makes it illegal to drive with .08% of alcohol in your blood stream. Both charges are class 1 misdemeanors and carry the option to imprison a person for up to one year in jail.”

From the law school carrel of Joel A. Arends
I did not know that. And as the Beatles said, "I get by with a little help from my friends."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Thanks for the info PP and Douglas from the previous post.

First, while Bob and I were/are political opponents, I wish him no harm in this and hope he comes out ok.

Second, I had a friend who was busted for .2 BAC and he could not stand or even remember being arrested. My point earlier was, if Bob could stand and remember being arrested he must be drinking an incredible amount to have that kind of tolerance (maybe he couldnt and cant). As confirmed by Douglas in the previous post.

Good info on the breathalyzer use, I assumed it contributed more than it apparently does to prosecution.

RICK KRIEBEL
7:39 PM
Douglas said…
Another thing. Even if a breathtest might not be automatically accepted as proof of a BAC, if the breathtest shows high and the driver refuses to have the blood test, that should mean an automatic license revocation via the SD "implied consent" law. The idea is to keep dangerous drunken drivers off the highways and into treatment because a drunken driving violation is usually a a very good indication that the person also has a serious drinking problem that is causing other problems in his or her life and for the people around them.

But, more responsibility should be put on the liquor industry. Shut every place selling alcohol down for a day a week or two weeks following a fatal crash related to drunken or impaired driving. The liquor industry will figure out how to be responsible if they all get shut down every other Friday or Saturday night.

And for my next sermon..... where'd my mount go anyway???? Horse's walk sober. And, all reading might want to remember the slogan I came up with for SDASAP...
Good Neighbors Drive Sober.
10:48 PM
Anonymous said…
Well, the pup almost got it right. The PBT can be used in court. We can lay the foundation for the test and have in the past. The controlling case law in SD points out the problem, the PBT is usually administered prior to the reading of the implied consent statute (the "right to refuse" to give a sample of your blood, breath or urine). So, in short, the PBT circumvents the implied consent law. I could go on at greater lengths to describe how we can and have used it in the past but I'd put everyone to sleep.
Signed,
Been there, done that.
11:03 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.

By -
Image
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Read more

Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges

By -
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with...
Read more

It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

By -
As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available. My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it? At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on...
Read more