Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hessgreen2 sentences2021Included among them is the exigent circumstances exception which “will justify a warrantless entry into a home for the purpose of either arrest or search.” State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 24, 680 N.W.2d 314, 325 (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1382 , 63 L. 2007See Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 24 , 680 N.W.2d at 325 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bowkergreen2 sentences2016“Exigent circumstances exist when a situation demands immediate attention with no time to obtain a warrant.” State v. Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 19, 754 N.W.2d 56, 63 (quoting State v. Dillon, 2007 S.D. 77 , ¶ 18, 738 N.W.2d 57, 60 ). 2016“Exigent circumstances exist when a situation demands immediate attention with no time to obtain a warrant.” State v. Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 19, 754 N.W.2d 56, 63 (quoting -5- #27817 State v. Dillon, 2007 S.D. 77 , ¶ 18, 738 N.W.2d 57, 60 ). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Heumillergreen2 sentences2007It noted that “one exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Id. “ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ ” Id. (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963) (Burger, J.))); State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 129 (S.D.1982) (additional citations omitted). [¶ 21.] The Court rejected 1998The exigent circumstances doctrine "is to be applied to the facts as perceived by the police at the time of entry, not as subsequently uncovered." Heumiller, 317 NW2d at 129 . | 1 | 3 |
Missouri v. McNeelygreen1 sentence2017McNeely simply held “that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.” — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. at 1568 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen2 sentences2014See id. at 770-72 , 86 S.Ct. at 1835-36 . 2014See id. at 770-72 , 86 S.Ct. at 1835-36 . | 1 | 1 |
Lewis L. Wayne v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007It noted that “one exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Id. “ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ ” Id. (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963) (Burger, J.))); State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 129 (S.D.1982) (additional citations omitted). [¶ 21.] The Court rejected | 1 | 1 |
Winston v. Leegreen2 sentences2003This reading of Schmerber is reinforced by the Court’s subsequent decision in Winston v. Lee, which noted that the blood test in Schmerber “fell within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.” 470 U.S. 753, 759 , 105 S.Ct. 1611, 1616 , 84 L.Ed.2d 662, 668 (1985). 2003This reading of Schmerber is reinforced by the Court’s subsequent decision in Winston v. Lee, which noted that the blood test in Schmerber “fell within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.” 470 U.S. 753, 759 , 105 S.Ct. 1611, 1616 , 84 L.Ed.2d 662, 668 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fierro
green
2 sentences2016The State sets-forth three exceptions that it *724 contends are applicable to this case: exigent circumstances, inevitable discoveiy, and the community caretaker doctrine. [¶ 12.] “The exigent circumstances exception is one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 13, 875 N.W.2d at 45 (quoting Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 17 , 853 N.W.2d at 240 ). 2016The State sets-forth three exceptions that it *724 contends are applicable to this case: exigent circumstances, inevitable discoveiy, and the community caretaker doctrine. [¶ 12.] “The exigent circumstances exception is one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 13, 875 N.W.2d at 45 (quoting Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 17 , 853 N.W.2d at 240 ). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Dillon
green
2 sentences2016“Exigent circumstances exist when a situation demands immediate attention with no time to obtain a warrant.” State v. Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 19, 754 N.W.2d 56, 63 (quoting State v. Dillon, 2007 S.D. 77 , ¶ 18, 738 N.W.2d 57, 60 ). 2016“Exigent circumstances exist when a situation demands immediate attention with no time to obtain a warrant.” State v. Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 19, 754 N.W.2d 56, 63 (quoting -5- #27817 State v. Dillon, 2007 S.D. 77 , ¶ 18, 738 N.W.2d 57, 60 ). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Fischer
green
2 sentences2016The State sets-forth three exceptions that it *724 contends are applicable to this case: exigent circumstances, inevitable discoveiy, and the community caretaker doctrine. [¶ 12.] “The exigent circumstances exception is one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 13, 875 N.W.2d at 45 (quoting Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 17 , 853 N.W.2d at 240 ). 2016The State sets forth three exceptions that it contends are applicable to this case: exigent circumstances, inevitable discovery, and the community caretaker doctrine. [¶12.] “The exigent circumstances exception is one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 13, 875 N.W.2d at 45 (quoting Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 17 , 853 N.W.2d at 240 ). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Payton v. New York
green
2 sentences2021Included among them is the exigent circumstances exception which “will justify a warrantless entry into a home for the purpose of either arrest or search.” State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 24, 680 N.W.2d 314, 325 (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1382 , 63 L. 2021Included among them is the exigent circumstances exception which “will justify a warrantless entry into a home for the purpose of either arrest or search.” State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 24, 680 N.W.2d 314, 325 (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1382 , 63 L. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Zahn
green
2 sentences2014State v. Zahn, 2012 S.D. 19, ¶ 30 , 812 N.W.2d 490, 499 . 2014State v. Zahn, 2012 S.D. 19, ¶ 30 , 812 N.W.2d 490, 499 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Cupp v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2014In turn, that destruction of evidence implicates the exigent-circumstances doctrine. [[Image here]] Just as the suspect’s efforts to destroy “highly evanescent evidence” gave rise to the exigency in Cupp [v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 , 93 S.Ct. 2000 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973) ], the natural metabolization of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the driver is drunk. 2014In turn, that destruction of evidence implicates the exigent-circumstances doctrine. [[Image here]] Just as the suspect’s efforts to destroy “highly evanescent evidence” gave rise to the exigency in Cupp [v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 , 93 S.Ct. 2000 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973) ], the natural metabolization of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the driver is drunk. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Brigham City v. Stuart
green
2 sentences2007It noted that “one exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Id. “ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ ” Id. (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963) (Burger, J.))); State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 129 (S.D.1982) (additional citations omitted). [¶ 21.] The Court rejected 2007Id. [¶20.] Stuart argued, and the Utah courts agreed, that the entry was not acceptable under either the “emergency aid doctrine” or the exigent circumstances exception. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mincey v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2007It noted that “one exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Id. “ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ ” Id. (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963) (Burger, J.))); State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 129 (S.D.1982) (additional citations omitted). [¶ 21.] The Court rejected 2007It noted that “one exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Id. “ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ ” Id. (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963) (Burger, J.))); State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 129 (S.D.1982) (additional citations omitted). [¶ 21.] The Court rejected | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Brooks v. United States
green
1 sentence1978Brooks v. United States, 367 A.2d 1297 (D.C.-1976). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.