Opinion ID: 1984139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: We conclude that defendant was under lawful arrest when Deputy Scherer requested and obtained a sample of his blood. In his brief and at oral argument defendant conceded that the officers had probable cause to arrest him without a warrant, because the officers testified that they smelled alcoholic beverages on his person and there was no doubt that he had been in an accident. See SDCL 32-23-1.1. [1] The precise issue is whether defendant was legally arrested. The investigating officers testified that none of them arrested defendant at the scene of the accident. After defendant had been taken to the hospital in Deadwood, Deputy Scherer approached him and asked if he could take a blood sample from him. At the trial Scherer said, I read Mr. Hackney his Miranda warning, and the State Implied Consent Law, advised him that he was under arrest for DWI, and that we would like to draw blood. The first statement of the implied consent warning given was, I have arrested you for DWI, a violation of 32-23-1. Defendant consented to the blood test and the sample was taken. At the suppression hearing prior to the trial Deputy Scherer had testified that he had not placed defendant under arrest at the hospital because the arrest warrant was not issued until later and he did not take him into custody; but he stated that he had technically arrested defendant. On cross-examination at trial he clarified his earlier testimony as follows: Q In fact isn't it true to say that at the time at the hospital you had no intentions of arresting the defendant? A No, that's not correct. Q You mean just shortly before this trial you would tell my associate that you did not arrest him, but that at the hospital you did intend to arrest him? A I told your associate I did not arrest him, as far as taking him into custody. I explained this to Mr. Hughes. It was my intention, as I've explained previously, to place Mr. Hackney under technical arrest, due to his injuries he was not in a position to be placed in jail. Q What is a technical arrest, in your opinion? A In my opinion it's advising someone that they are under arrest. At the suppression hearing prior to the trial Deputy Scherer also testified that he continued the investigation of the accident after defendant had been moved to the hospital in Rapid City. He said he contacted the hospital the day after defendant was moved to Rapid City and instructed the employees to inform him when defendant was about to be released. He contacted the hospital twice to inquire about defendant's condition and release. On August 11, 1975, he signed a formal complaint charging defendant with second degree manslaughter and a warrant was issued for defendant's arrest. Subsequent to the issuance of the complaint and the warrant, defendant was released from the hospital. Because the hospital failed to inform Deputy Scherer of defendant's release, he was not arrested until he had returned home to Nebraska. Defendant contends that Deputy Scherer's statement, I have arrested you for DWI . . .  in the hospital in Deadwood was not sufficient to constitute a lawful arrest. [2] He conceded at oral argument that at the time the statement was made he understood what Deputy Scherer said to him and he knew he was not free to go, but contends that the officer did not have the requisite subjective intent to arrest him at that time. SDCL 23-22-9 provides: When arresting a person without a warrant, a peace officer must inform him of his authority and the cause of the arrest, except when he is in the actual commission of a public offense, or is pursued immediately after an escape. In this case defendant does not contend that he was unaware that Scherer was acting in his official capacity as deputy sheriff, and Scherer clearly informed him that the cause of the arrest was driving while intoxicated. [3] SDCL 23-22-4 provides: An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer. The defendant is not to be subjected to any more restraint than is necessary for his arrest and detention. Defendant admitted at oral argument that he knew he was not free to go. His consent to take the blood test is indicative of his submission to Deputy Scherer's authority. In light of defendant's injuries there was nothing more Scherer could have done to restrain him. He kept in touch with the hospital in Rapid City to see that defendant would be taken into custody upon his release. As long as defendant was in the hospital, no additional restraint was necessary to detain him. SDC 1960 Supp. 34.1609 [now SDCL §§ 23-22-7 to 23-22-9], requiring an officer making an arrest without a warrant to inform the person being arrested the officer's authority and the cause of arrest, provides no particular ritual to be followed. The rule is satisfied if what is said and done makes clear why the arrest is being made. [Citations omitted] As a general rule, the notice is sufficient when it is such as to inform a reasonable man of the authority and purpose of the one making the arrest, and the reason thereof. Circumstances, without express words, may afford sufficient notice. In re Application of Kiser, 83 S.D. 272, 283, 158 N.W.2d 596, 602 (1968). We conclude that what Deputy Scherer said and did in the present case made the reason for the arrest clear to defendant. By the time defendant consented to give the blood sample, he had been lawfully arrested and the results of the blood test were admissible.