Connect with us

South Dakota Judge Rules Warrant is Required for Urine Sample

Published

on

[dropcap class=”kp-dropcap”]T[/dropcap]he South Dakota Supreme Court recently ruled that police must obtain a warrant in order to demand a urine test from someone they have arrested on suspicion of using drugs.

According to U.S. News, this ruling was officially issued on Feb. 22. The case was brought forth by Hi Ta Lar, who was pulled over for a broken headlight in 2015 and subsequently drug tested when paraphernalia was found in the vehicle. Traces of methamphetamine were found in his system, and he was sentenced to three years in prison, but Lar appealed the decision.

Previously, many cases have been decided by Chimel Vs. California, a 1969 court case that ruled that an officer could automatically search a suspect for weapons or contraband and conduct drug testing. Now, in South Dakota, this will no longer be the case, whether its methamphetamine or cannabis.

“The privacy concerns surrounding the category of effects at issue in this case (i.e., an arrestee’s urine) outweigh the State’s interest in preserving evidence,” the ruling states. “Although requiring an arrestee to urinate into a specimen container does not involve a physical intrusion into the body, such a search is both more informative and more embarrassing than the breath test.”

The Argus Leader also claims that police cited a “nervous appearance” as a reason for pulling the driver over. Other than a burned-out headlight, there were no reported indications that the driver was intoxicated or in possession of any drugs.

South Dakota has been working hard to make its laws more fair, including attempting to remove its “possession by ingestion” law and approving industrial hemp. Thanks to the hard work of cannabis activists and those in favor of more sensible policies, laws are becoming easier to navigate in South Dakota.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *