Last week’s ruling by the South Dakota Supreme Court overturning a state law saying law enforcement officials cannot collect blood from DUI suspects without consent is still reverberating around the state. The Implied Consent legislation was introduced by then State Senator Lee Schoenbeck (SHONE-BECK). He says the issue had been in play since the mid 60’s when the U-S Supreme Court handed down a decision saying a search warrant wasn’t necessary to obtain blood when testing for alcohol…
In 2005 Schoenbeck, while chairing the Judicial Criminal Code Revision Commission, said it was laid out to his group how the worst drunks were skirting the law and that changes were needed. That’s when he offered up the implied consent law that was recently struck down. He says that legislation was praised by both the courts and law enforcement because it created far fewer jury trials. Schoenbeck says that law said you were either under or over the legal limit to drive and were either convicted or found innocent…
What has changed since the state’s implied consent law was enacted is technology. Schoenbeck says it’s much easier in the cell phone era for police to obtain telephonic search warrants in a short time…