Title: State v. Crow
Citation: 504 N.W.2d 336
Docket Number: 17916
State: south-dakota
Issuer: south-dakota Supreme Court
Date: August 11, 1993

504 N.W.2d 336 (1993) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Brenda L. CROW, Defendant and Appellant. No. 17916. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs on January 14, 1993. Decided August 11, 1993. *337 Mark Barnett, Atty. Gen., Scott Bogue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee. Richard Hopewell, Bruce E. Lambertson, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant. PER CURIAM. Brenda L. Crow (Crow) appeals from a judgment convicting her of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, third offense. SDCL 32-23-1(1), SDCL 32-23-4. We affirm. Crow pled guilty to third offense driving while under the influence on March 26, 1992. This conviction was based in part on an October 27, 1990 DUI that Crow pled guilty to on January 23, 1991. On October 27, 1990, Officer Wegener saw Crow drive through a stop sign at the intersection of LaFayette and Center Streets in Flandreau. Crow saw Officer Wegener and stopped past the stop sign. She then turned into the southbound lane of Center Street. Officer Wegener turned his car around and stopped Crow's car within a few blocks of the Center Street/LaFayette intersection. The stop was made on Center Street's southbound lane. Officer Wegener immediately noticed the strong odor of alcohol coming from Crow as she spoke. Following her performance of field sobriety tests Crow was arrested for DUI. She was taken to the Flandreau Hospital for blood tests. She later pled guilty to this offense in the circuit court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit. LaFayette Street is under state jurisdiction. The southbound lane of Center Street where Crow was stopped and arrested is under tribal jurisdiction while the northbound lane is under state jurisdiction. Crow argued that since the DUI arrest was made in Indian country Officer Wegener had no jurisdiction to make the arrest and the trial court had no jurisdiction over her case. Therefore, this conviction should not be used to support the current conviction for DUI, third offense. The trial court disagreed. It concluded: Because she was stopped and arrested on reservation land Crow contends that the state's circuit court lacked jurisdiction over her case. Red Fox v. Hettich, 494 N.W.2d 638, 643-644 (S.D.1993). In State v. Spotted Horse, 462 N.W.2d 463 (S.D.1990), this court recognized that South Dakota does not have jurisdiction over Indian country and the state may not exercise partial jurisdiction over highways running through reservations. An illegal arrest on the reservation does not bar a state court prosecution of a crime committed off the reservation, however: Spotted Horse, 462 N.W.2d at 467, quoting State v. Winckler, 260 N.W.2d 356, 363 (S.D.1977). Spotted Horse had been seen within Mobridge with expired license plates, chased at high speeds eight miles onto the reservation, and was arrested for failure to display current vehicle registration. On the ride back to Mobridge the officer noticed the smell of alcohol on Spotted Horse's breath. Following field sobriety testing at the Mobridge police station Spotted Horse was arrested for DUI. This court affirmed the verdict on the failure to display current registration since the offense was committed off the reservation and the officer independently obtained evidence of this offense before the illegal arrest. The field sobriety and blood test evidence was held inadmissible because the seizure of Spotted Horse was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. In Crow's case she was observed running a stop sign in land under state jurisdiction. Clearly there was a reasonable and articulable suspicion justifying a stop. State v. Thill, 474 N.W.2d 86 (S.D. 1991). In addition to the stop sign violation, she was arrested for DUI. The fact that the stop and arrest occurred a few blocks into Indian country did not deprive the state circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction, Red Fox, supra. There is one important distinction between the Spotted Horse case and Crow's case, however. A jury convicted Spotted Horse of DUI. 462 N.W.2d at 464. Crow, however, pled guilty to the DUI she now attempts to attack. Grosh, supra, 387 N.W.2d at 507 (quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S. Ct. 1602, 1608, 36 L. Ed. 2d 235, 243 (1973). State v. Schulz, 409 N.W.2d 655, 656-657 (S.D.1987). Therefore, Crow's guilty plea waived suppression of evidence obtained by the arrest. Consequently the trial court correctly denied Crow's motion to dismiss the supplemental information. Affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, HENDERSON, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., participating.