Court Opinion

ID: 9514734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:51:25.244815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:20.438099
License: Public Domain

GILBERTSON, Justice.
[¶ 1.] Edward Louis Vocu was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance, a Class 5 felony, possession of less than one-half pound of marijuana, a Class 1 misdemeanor, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 2 misdemeanor. We affirm.
FACTS
[¶ 2.] When Highway Patrol Trooper Boersma spotted Vocu’s pickup traveling on a Rapid City street on May 28, 1998, he knew that Vocu was suspected of drug trafficking, might be involved in it that day, and possibly kept drugs in his vehicle. Boersma ran a license check and discovered Voeu’s driver’s license had expired. He also noticed the pickup’s rear license plate light was inoperative.
[¶ 3.] Trooper Boersma stopped the pickup and approached the driver. Vocu identified himself by producing his expired South Dakota driver’s license. He was ticketed for driving without a valid driver’s license.
[¶ 4.] Because Vocu did not have a valid driver’s license Trooper Boersma asked him to post a seventy-five dollar bond. When Vocu was unable to post the bond, Boersma ordered him transported to jail and booked. While at the jail Vocu was interviewed by DCI agents and read his Miranda rights. Vocu waived his Miranda rights, made statements to the officers to the effect he had drug paraphernalia at his residence and consented to a search of that residence. The subsequent search yielded a marijuana pipe with residue and a scale with methamphetamine residue.
[¶ 5.] After his arrest, Vocu filed a motion to suppress the results of this search, arguing that SDCL 32-33-2 governed his stop and required Trooper Boersma to allow Vocu to sign the “promise to appear” portion of the uniform traffic ticket and then be released. The trial court concluded:
4. Because Vocu was not able to provide Trooper Boersma with a valid drivers license, Trooper Boersma was not required by SDCL 32-33-2 to immediately issue a summons and notice of time and place to appear and release Vocu at the scene of the traffic stop. Trooper Boersma validly required that Vocu post a bond for his release.
5. Because Vocu did not have enough money to post the required bond, Trooper Boersma validly required Vocu to go to jail, where he would be required to post bond after seeing the nearest or most available magistrate.
6. Vocu, by being taken to the Pennington County jail, was not illegally detained. His subsequent consent and any statements made in the interview at the jail was [sic] not tainted by an illegal detention.
*625ISSUE
[¶ 6.] Did the trial court err when it denied Vocu’s motion to suppress?
DISCUSSION
[¶ 7.] Vocu and the State agree that his offense of driving with an expired license is a violation of SDCL 32-12-22 that provides:
No person, except those expressly exempted in §§ 32-12-22.1 to 32-12-28, inclusive, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid license as an operator under the provisions of this chapter. Any person convicted for a violation of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
[¶ 8.] Accordingly, SDCL 23A-3-2 authorized Trooper Boersma to arrest Vocu. That statute provides, in part:
A law enforcement officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(1) For a public offense, other than a petty offense, committed or attempted in his presence!.]
[¶ 9.] Vocu contends, however, that SDCL 32-33-2 required Trooper Boersma to release Vocu from custody after he signed the written promise to appear. SDCL 32-33-2 provides:
Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever a person is arrested for a violation of any provision of this title punishable as a misdemeanor, the arresting officer shall take the name and address of the person and the license number of his motor vehicle and driver’s license and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in the summons or notice. The time shall be at least five days after the arrest unless the person arrested demands an earlier hearing. The arresting officer shall upon the person’s written promise to appear, release him from custody. Any person refusing to give a written promise to appear shall be taken immediately by the arresting officer before the nearest or most accessible magistrate. Any person who intentionally violates his written promise to appear is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he was originally arrested. A nonresident arrested for a violation of any provision of this title may be required to post bond in the amount set forth on the fine and bond schedule provided by the presiding circuit court judge, or in an amount set by a magistrate or judge for that offense, before being released from custody, (emphasis added).
[¶ 10.] Under SDCL 32-33-2 Vocu had to produce his name and address, the license number of the motor vehicle he was driving, and his driver’s license before he could be released upon his promise to appear. While Vocu produced what he characterizes as an expired driver’s license, he was unable to produce what SDCL 32-33-2 requires, a valid license authorizing him to drive a motor vehicle upon South Dakota highways. SDCL 32-33-2 does not recognize non-valid driver’s licenses as being in compliance with the statute. For purposes of compliance with this statute, an expired, suspended,. revoked, altered or forged driver’s license is the same as no driver’s license. Vocu was not authorized tó drive his vehicle. SDCL 32-12-22. Trooper Boersma would have violated his duty as a law enforcement officer had he allowed Vocu to sign a promise to appear and simply drive away. To hold otherwise would create an absurd and unreasonable result that the legislature did not intend. Dahn v. Trownsell, 1998 SD 36, 576 N.W.2d 535. See also, State v. Brassfield, 2000 SD 110, ¶ 15, 615 N.W.2d 628, 632.
[¶ 11.] Trooper Boersma had the authority to bring Vocu to jail under SDCL 23A-3-2 rather than releasing him pursuant to SDCL 32-33-2. Vocu then waived his Miranda rights and gave permission to *626search his apartment.1 Consequently, the trial court did not err by denying Vocu’s motion to suppress. State v. Smith, 1999 SD 83, 599 N.W.2d 344.
[¶ 12.] Affirmed.
[¶ 13.] MILLER, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, Justice, concur.
[¶ 14.] SABERS, and AMUNDSON, Justices, dissent.

. Vocu does not contest the validity of his waiver of his Miranda rights nor the validity of his voluntary consent to the search of his residence.