SD: Search incident doctrine doesn’t apply to driver’s urine samples

A urine sample can’t be taken from a suspect incident to an arrest. Nothing about the search incident doctrine of officer safety and destruction of evidence applies to urine samples. State v. Lar, 2018 SD 18, 2018 S.D. LEXIS 26 (Feb. 21, 2018):

[*P16] In light of the foregoing, law enforcement must secure a warrant prior to obtaining a urine sample from an arrestee. Even though there may not be a less-invasive method of obtaining the evidence in an arrestee’s urine, the privacy concerns involved in searching an arrestee’s urine are much greater than those involved in subjecting an arrestee to a breath test. Until and unless the United States Supreme Court offers further guidance on applying the search-incident-to-arrest exception to searching an arrestee’s urine, this Court will adhere to the Fourth Amendment’s “strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant[.]” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2331, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983). Other courts have similarly held. See State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224, 233 (Minn. 2016) (holding warrant required to search urine of motorist arrested for driving under influence of alcohol); State v. Helm, 901 N.W.2d 57, 60-61 (N.D. 2017) (holding warrant required to search urine of motorist arrested for driving under influence of controlled substance).