Opinion ID: 2220705
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The first stop as it relates to Krebs.

Text: When Wermers saw Krebs and Davis in the vehicle at the 7-11, Wermers was justified in making a reasonable investigation based upon the police flyer. We have stated: A police officer, in performing his official work, may properly question persons when the circumstances reasonably indicate that it is necessary to the proper discharge of his duties. State v. Burkman, 281 N.W.2d 436, 439 (S.D.1979). Evidence at trial indicated that Krebs intended to stop at the residence. Wermers did not activate his emergency siren to cause Krebs to stop nor did he use his lights. Additionally, as Wermers approached Krebs' vehicle, he became aware of a violation of the law due to the dangling handcuffs on the rear view mirror. Wermers issued a warning ticket for the violation and Krebs removed the object from the mirror. Krebs identified himself to Wermers and identified his passenger as Guy Davis. He also provided his vehicle registration and proof of insurance to Wermers. Wermers used his flashlight to peer into the interior of Krebs' vehicle from the outside. That is the extent of the intrusion of the first stop. In light of the information available to Wermers in the bulletin and his subsequent discovery of a violation of SDCL 32-15-6, the initial investigation of Krebs' vehicle was minimally intrusive and was reasonable under the circumstances. The trial court did not err in finding Wermers acted reasonably.