Case Law & Resources: South Dakota
Citation
Issue Presented & Facts
Holding
Thornton v. City of Rapid City, 692 N.W.2d 525, (S. D. 2005)
Whether officer's tackling of a minor on a sidewalk constituted greater than necessary force to uphold preclusion of summary judgment in favor of the officer.
​
Officer mistakenly tackled innocent minor while chasing group of youths running from the scene of reported disturbance without asking or warning minor to stop.
South Dakota law imposes no de-escalation requirements on law enforcement officers.
Officers actions cannot be said to be objectively reasonable under the circumstances as a matter of law--issue must go before a jury to determine the facts and whether force used was excessive under the circumstances.
​
Reference to S. D. C. L. § 22-18-2.
Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 580 N.W.2d 606, 612 (S. D. 1998)
Whether force used by officers during stop of individual mistaken for suspect was unlawful.
​
Appellant stopped by officers due to matching description of armed robbery suspect, driving erratically, and failing to stop promptly upon activation of patrol car's lights/siren. Officers ordered appellant out of car at gunpoint, handcuffed him, and searched for weapons. Appellant brought an eight-count claim against the City claiming, inter alia, false imprisonment, assault and battery.
​
South Dakota law imposes no de-escalation requirements on law enforcement officers
Officers' acts of approaching a suspected armed robbery suspect with guns drawn, having him kneel on the street, handcuffing him, and placing him in the police vehicle for a twelve-minute period, did not constitute unreasonable force under the circumstances.
​
Reference to S. D. C. L. § 22-18-2.
State v. Means, 276 N.W.2d 699, 701 (S. D. 1979)
Whether officers had the lawful right to physically remove spectators from court after spectators refused to leave.
​
Appellant, as a court spectator, did not stand for judge when he entered the courtroom and refused to leave when judge ordered the courtroom cleared, after which the Sioux Falls Tactical Squad entered the courtroom and removed him. Appellant argued that the Tactical Squad engaged in an unlawful attack with no legal authority.
​
South Dakota law imposes no de-escalation requirements on law enforcement officers.
Officers were ordered by the trial judge to clear the courtroom and were therefore operating under lawful authority. Appellant and other spectators who refused to stand knew that they had violated the court's order and that they would be subject to removal by the police, and therefore had no legal authority to remain in the courtroom once the judge had requested them to leave--the police officers thus had authority to use such force as was necessary to remove them.
​
Reference to S. D. C. L. § 22-18-2.
Swedlund v. Foster, 657 N.W.2d 39, 57 (S. D. 2003)
Whether officers were privileged to use force under South Dakota law on docile suspect for failing to comply with officers' orders when officers had no probable cause for arrest.
During unauthorized search of home for checks related to suspected embezzlement, Appellee, a mentally disabled man, was physically forced to the ground after failing to comply with officers' orders. Appellee sued for, inter alia, assault and battery, and the officers moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity, which was denied.
South Dakota law imposes no de-escalation requirements on law enforcement officers.
Genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether officers used more force than was necessary due to the fact that officers' search was unauthorized and no probable cause existed for arrest.
​
Reference to S. D. C. L. § 22-18-2.
Case Law
Resources
Citation
Summary and Notes
Relevant Excerpt
Investigative report found reasonable use of force under the circumstances by officers who threatened to shoot 17-year-old driver if she did not obey orders and then dragged her out of the car and forced her to the ground.
N/A
​Note that while the following link suggests that "de-escalation is required, but no minimum hours set," we could not find any requirement beyond the 2-hour crisis intervention requirement. It is possible that de-escalation falls within that broad topic area.
N/A