SD: Jury instruction on refusal of UA in a drug case was proper

At the Sturgis motorcycle rally, an officer noticed a couple enter a porta potty at 1 am. Finding this unsual, he went up and listened. He heard something that barely suggested they weren’t using the facilities for the intended use or even sex. He knocked on the door, and the man came out. Defendant remained inside sitting and had a plastic bag in hand which she dropped into the waste below. The officer retrieved it. It was reasonable to knock, and opening the door was consent. The bag was abandoned into the feces and urine below. She refused a urine test, and the state got a jury instruction on her refusal as being evidence of guilt. “In South Dakota, the same is true for drug offenses. State v. Mattson, 2005 S.D. 71, ¶ 45, 698 N.W.2d 538, 552 (‘[T]he refusal by a defendant of an officer’s legitimate request to take a urinalysis … is admissible at trial … even if the defendant is not warned that [her] refusal will be admissible at trial.’).” State v. Stanley, 2017 SD 32, 2017 S.D. LEXIS 66 (May 31, 2017).

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Consent, Drug or alcohol testing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.