Court Opinion

ID: 9663421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:38:37.101288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:49.847457
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
I believe the following is the correct interpretation of the meaning and effect of SDCL 32-12-52.1, and I concur in the result.
SDCL 32-12-52.1 requires the Department of Commerce to revoke Fischer’s license for one year because “if he had been charged and convicted consistent with” their “records,” he would have been charged with a DWI second. If he had been charged and convicted of a DWI second, the circuit court would have been required to unconditionally revoke his driving privilege for a period of at least one year. SDCL 32-23-3. It does not matter that he was charged with a second first offense DWI, because according to Department’s records he should have been charged with a second offense DWI and revoked for a period of one year. SDCL 32-12-52.1.
Although the statute was poorly worded in its 1983 form and in the amended 1984 form, the intended meaning is discernible. Since the cardinal principle of statutory construction is to preserve and not to destroy, we should uphold that meaning where possible. Matter of Silver King Mines, Permit Ex-5, 315 N.W.2d 689, 692 (S.D.1982) (Henderson, J., specially concurring).