State v. Satter
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Per curiam
[¶ 1.] A “concerned citizen” eyewitness told a police officer that he had seen two men drinking beer in a van parked next to the eyewitness in a parking lot. The police officer executed a traffic stop on the van after it was driven out of the parking lot. As a result of this stop, Shane Allen Satter was convicted of violating SDCL 32-23-1, driving a vehicle while having 0.08 percent or more BAC. Satter appeals his conviction, claiming that the eyewitness’s tip did not create reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop and, therefore, violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Florida v. J. L.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Florida v. JLSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. Alfonso Sierra-HernandezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- United States v. Wade Allen WheatCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Antonio Duran SalazarCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. MohrSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Salt Lake City v. StreetCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2011
- State v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. MeyerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
- State of Iowa v. Leon KooimaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.