South Dakota Codified Laws

S.D. Codified Laws § 32-23-2 (2026)

Punishment for prohibited driving--First offense--Limited driving privilege.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section SD-LEGsdlegislature.gov JustiaS.D. Codified Laws CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

32-23-2. Punishment for prohibited driving--First offense--Limited driving privilege.

If conviction for a violation of § 32-23-1 is for a first offense, the person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, and the court must revoke the person's driver license for not less than thirty days. The court may, in its discretion, issue an order, upon proof of financial responsibility pursuant to § 32-35-113, permitting the person to operate a vehicle for purposes of employment, 24/7 sobriety testing, attendance at school, child care delivery or pickup, health appointments, attendance at court or probation appointments, or attendance at counseling programs, treatment, or aftercare. The court may also order the revocation of the person's driving privilege for a further period not to exceed one year or restrict the privilege in any manner it sees fit for a period not to exceed one year.

Source: SL 1953, ch 246, § 1; SDC Supp 1960, § 44.9922 (1); SL 1973, ch 195, § 5; SL 1975, ch 207, § 1; SL 1976, ch 198; SL 1977, ch 189, § 112; SL 1985, ch 263, § 1; SL 1991, ch 252, § 17; SL 1994, ch 255, § 5; SL 2006, ch 168, § 4; SL 2008, ch 161, § 1, eff. Feb. 27, 2008; SL 2022, ch 99, § 1; SL 2024, ch 120, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: Maas v. Dep't of Com. & Reg., 2003 SD 48 (S.D. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Maas v. Dep't of Com. & Reg., 2003 SD 48 (S.D. 2003). · cites it 14× “1, however, specifically applies to DUIs, and it authorizes the Department to revoke a drivers license "to the extent that the driver license or privileges should have been revoked [by the trial court under] the mandatory [revocation] provisions of SDCL 32-23-2 to 4." This…”

In Re the Revocation of the Driver License of Fischer, 395 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 1986). · cites it 8× “His driving privileges were revoked by the trial court for a period of thirty days, pursuant to SDCL 32-23-2. Subsequently, and during the thirty-day period, Department notified Fischer that it was revoking his operator's permit for a period of one year, pursuant to SDCL…”

McCoy v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 12 A.3d 948 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 2× “Codified Laws §§ 22-6-1 and 22-6-2 [2006]; S.D. Codified Laws § 32-23-2 et seq. [2004]); Tennessee (Tenn.”

State v. Huettl, 379 N.W.2d 298 (S.D. 1985). · cites it 2× “He points out that the legislature by enacting SDCL 32-23-2, -3, and -4, provided automatic enhancement for individuals convicted of DWI within a five-year period.”

Horne v. Crozier, 1997 SD 65 (S.D. 1997). · cites it 2× “SDCL 32-23-2. Although the circuit court incorrectly applied qualified immunity, we conclude it properly granted summary judgment for Sioux Falls because whether Officer Crozier negligently fastened the handcuffs too tight, there was no direct causal link between his actions and…”

State v. Flegel, 485 N.W.2d 210 (S.D. 1992). · cites it 2× “2d at 746 (note citation to SDCL 32-23-2 in footnote 14), and the misdemeanor penalties discussed in Patzner, 779 F.”

State v. James Denelsbeck(075170), 137 A.3d 462 (N.J. 2016). “South Dakota classifies a first offense as a misdemeanor, S.D. Codified Laws § 32-23-2 , punishable by up to a year in prison, S.”

State v. Tho Ngoc Nguyen, 1997 SD 47 (S.D. 1997). · cites it 2× “See SDCL 32-23-2 and -3. The majority, however, contends that the statutory protections provided by the implied consent statute are also available to a driver arrested for vehicular homicide, a felony.”

State v. Kordonowy, 523 N.W.2d 556 (S.D. 1994). · cites it 2× “Kordonowy (Kordonowy) appeals his conviction of first offense driving under the influence (DUI), in violation of SDCL 32-23-2, a Class 1 misdemeanor. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the running of the 180 day period…”

State v. Short Bull, 928 N.W.2d 473 (S.D. 2019). “See SDCL 32-23-2. Short Bull appealed his conviction to circuit court, arguing, among other things, that Officer Holt lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that the community caretaking exception did not apply because the basis for the stop was "not totally…”

Swanson v. State, Dep't of Com. & Reg., 417 N.W.2d 385 (S.D. 1987). · cites it 2× “1 which provides: The Department of commerce and regulation shall revoke the license or permit of any operator upon receiving notice of an operator's conviction for a violation of the provisions of § 32-23-1 to the extent that the operator's privileges should have been revoked,…”

Heles v. South Dakota, 530 F. Supp. 646 (D.S.D. 1982). “The second conviction for DWI is also a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.