STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA) IN CIRCUIT COURT )SS COUNTY OF HUGHES ) SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, ) 32CRI16-218 ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH ) WARRANT & SUPPRESS DIRK LANDON SPARKS, ) Dos 3/16/1972 ) ) Defendant. ) COMES NOW, the Defendant, Dirk Landon Sparks, by and through his court- appointed attorney, Jeremy Lund, The Schreiber Law Firm, Prof. L.L.C., Pierre, South Dakota; and hereby moves this court for an order quashing the Search Warrant in this, matter and suppressing any and all evidence derived therefrom for the following reasons; 4. On March 14, 2016, Officer Matthew Shaver prepared an Affidavit in Support for Search Warrant. The Affidavit requested a search warrant for the blood and/or urine of the Defendant. 2. On March 14, 2016, the Honorable John Brown issued a search warrant authorizing the search of the Defendant for the Defendant’s blood and urine. 3, The Defendant refused to provide a urine sample pursuant to the search warrant. Law Enforcement ultimately took Defendant to the Hospital, strapped the Defendant to a bed, and conducted a forced catheterization for the Defendant's urine. Filed: 6/16/2016 8:27:33 AMCST Hughes County, South Dakota 32CRI16-0002184, The search warrant does not authorize catheterization nor did Law enforcement attempt to take a sample of the Defendant's blood. 5. Under normal circumstances, providing a urine sample by urinating into a cup is less intrusive than the taking of blood. “Urination into a specimen container is reasonable process. As a normal body function, urination is {ess intrusive than removal of blood by a syringe.” State v Hansen, 1999 SD 8, 1140. However, catheterization to collect urine is highly invasive more intrusive than removal of blood by a syringe. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be search and the person or thing to be seized. South Dakota Constitution Art. VI, §411 7. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, an no Warrants shall issue but on probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. Amendment IV. 8. The Fourth Amendment does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only against unreasonable searches and seizures. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568 1573, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). 9. [The 4" Amendments'] central requirement is one of reasonableness. Minois v McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 (2001). 2 5/16/2016 8:27:33 AMCST Hughes County, South Dakota —32CRI16-00021840. In deciding whether a search or seizure was reasonable, "[{}he touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Pennsylvania v. Minuns, 434 U.S, 106, 108-09, 98 S.Ct, 330, 332, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (197) (quoting Terry V. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878-79, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 11. Reasonableness "depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574 2579, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). 12. To be reasonable, law enforcement must make “reasonable efforts to reconcile their law enforcement needs with the demands of personal privacy.” ILLINOIS v. McARTHUR, 531, U.S. 326, 332 (2001) 13. The warrant issued for the Defendant's Blood and Urine lacked sufficient particularity. “We have long held, moreover, that the purpose of the particularity requirement is not limited to the prevention of general searel A particular warrant also “assures the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search." Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S, 551, 561 (2004), 14."It is incumbent on the officer executing a search warrant to ensure the search is lawfully authorized and lawfully conducted.” Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). led: 6/16/2016 8:27:33 AMCST Hughes County, South Dakota 32CRI16-00021815. The manner in which evidence is seized must also be reasonable. “Another factor is the extent of intrusion upon the individuat's dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity."... “inquiry therefore must focus on the extent of the intrusion on respondent's privacy interests and on the State's need for the evidence.” Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 761- 763, (1985). 16. The affidavit in support of Search warrant was insufficient to support probable cause for issuance of the search warrant for blood and urine and certainly insufficient for the issuance of a warrant authorizing catheterization. Wherefore, the Defendant prays: A) Foran order quashing the search warrant; B) An order suppressing the urine sample and test results therefrom, Dated May 16, 2016. THE SCHREIBER LAW FIRM, Prof. LL. Attorney for Defendant on ae Jeremy Lund 740 East Sioux Avenue, Suite 110 Pierre, SD 57501 (605) 494-3004 (605) 494-3005 (fax) iled: 5/16/2016 8:27:33 AMCST Hughes County, South Dakota 32CRI16-000218CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘The undersigned hereby certifies that on May 16, 2016, he served a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO QUASH & SUPPRESS upon the person(s) herein next designated, to-wit: Wendy Kloeppner Hughes County State's Attomey Wendy. Kloeppner@co, hughes.sd.us igi Jeremy Lund by electronic service. Filed: 5/16/2016 8:27:33 AMCST Hughes County, South Dakota 32CRI16-000218