- Loading ...
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
Monthly Archives: April 2022
Court rules juveniles can be charged with DUI
The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously ruled recently that the state can charge juveniles with DUI.
Justice Janine Kern wrote the opinion after appeals made in Pennington and Meade counties.
Three persons under the age of 18 were arrested and charged with DUI between 2018 and 2019.
In each case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing they could only be charged under the zero tolerance DUI state statute governing juveniles and their cases could only be heard in juvenile court.
All of the dismissal requests were denied in magistrate court and then in circuit court.
The state submitted that the jurisdiction in magistrate court was proper since a DUI charge is a traffic offense “excluded from the delinquency statues and not listed in the definitions of a (children in need of supervision or CHINS).”
“Despite the appellants’ perceived disharmony among the different avenues that the state may take when charging underage drivers under the zero tolerance or DUI statutes, these arguments involved the wisdom of the legislature’s penal code, which are ‘questions of public policy, not appellate error,” Kern wrote.
She wrote that contrary to the claim that the overlapping statutes cause disharmony, the conclusion upon reading the statutes is that the legislature intended to provide prosecutors with the option of charging juveniles under either statute.
Kern concluded that the appellants failed to support their arguments that the language of the statutes prevents the state from charging them in magistrate court.
“The statutes are clear and unambiguous,” she wrote, noting the state has the discretion to charge juveniles with DUIs in magistrate or juvenile court.