Court Opinion

ID: 9514609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:50:43.406473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:19.288231
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 53.] I join Justice Amundson’s dissent in all respects.
[¶ 54.] In addition, the forced urine test of defendant violated Article VI, § 9 of the South Dakota Constitution. “There can be no doubt .that this court has the power to provide an individual with greater protection under the state constitution than does the United States Supreme Court under the federal constitution.” State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673, 674 (S.D.1976) (citing Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975)). Article VI, § 9 provides independent state grounds for reversing and remanding this conviction.
[¶ 55.] Article VI, § 9 of the South Dakota Constitution provides in part:
No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself[.]
(Emphasis added). The language of Article VI, § 9 provides broader protection than the Fifth Amendment which provides: “No person ... shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself!.]” 4 The word “evidence” used in Article VI, § 9 encompasses more than mere testimony. The process imposed here violated Article VI, § 9 because it clearly compelled Buchholz to give evidence against herself in a criminal case.
[¶ 56.] The prohibition contained in Article VI, § 9 does not prevent law enforce*910ment from ever obtaining samples of urine, blood or other bodily substances under proper circumstance such as exigent circumstances or a warrant based on probable cause. However, in this case, law enforcement did not obtain a warrant before seizing Buchholz’s urine and exigent circumstances to excuse the necessity of obtaining a warrant did not exist.
[¶ 57.] Therefore, we should reverse and remand for a new, fair trial.

. "This wording is substantively different than its federal counterpart, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against compulsion of a person 'to be a witness against himself.' " State v. Meek, 444 N.W.2d 48, 51 (S.D.1989) (Henderson, J., dissenting).