Federal Judge Approves Settlement in ACLU’s Fourth Amendment Challenge to S.D. Law Enforcement Practice of Forced Catheterizations

September 16, 2020 10:45 am

ACLU Affiliate
ACLU of South Dakota
Media Contact
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
United States

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — U.S. District Judge Roberto Lange has approved a settlement in a case that says South Dakota law enforcement’s practice of using forced catheterizations to obtain urine samples from suspects is unconstitutional.

The ACLU of South Dakota and attorney Jim Leach of Rapid City filed the Fourth Amendment case on behalf of several individuals against the city of Wagner and the Wagner Police Department, the city of Pierre and the Pierre Police Department, the city of Sisseton and the Sisseton Police Department, and the South Dakota Highway Patrol along with individually named law enforcement officers.

In the case, the plaintiffs said they were held down and subjected to involuntary catheterization after police obtained search warrants for urine samples to detect the presence of drugs, a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. None of the search warrants obtained by police specifically authorized forced catheterization as a means of obtaining evidence.

“The Fourth Amendment guarantees people the right to be free from unreasonable police searches,” Leach said. “There is nothing reasonable about forcibly catheterizing someone. The Constitution’s purpose is to protect people from police intrusions exactly like this. Now the practice of police using forced catheterization to gather evidence will stop.”

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants – the cities of Pierre, Sisseton and Wagner and former South Dakota Highway Patrol Officer Adam Woxland – agreed to collectively pay a total of $440,000 in damages, legal costs and attorney’s fees.

In his April ruling, Lange said he found that the mere suspicion of low-level drug crimes did not justify this invasive and painful procedure.

“The plaintiffs were not smuggling drugs or weapons in their urethras and bladders, and the catheterizations would only provide evidence of drug ingestion rather than the more serious crime of drug trafficking. … Ingesting drugs is one of the least serious drug crimes a person can commit,” Lange wrote.

South Dakota is the only state that imposes a felony for ingestion of a controlled substance. These counterproductive drug policies have swept thousands of nonviolent drug offenders into the state’s criminal legal system and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. This settlement is another reminder of why criminal justice reform is needed.

“South Dakota’s tough-on-crime approach to drug users struggling with addiction, as evidenced with the use of forced catheterization to secure evidence, doesn’t work,” said Libby Skarin, ACLU of South Dakota campaigns director. “Though drug use is undoubtedly a serious issue, we can’t incarcerate our way out of addiction. Our lawmakers should see the outcome in this case and finally eliminate ingestion as a felony offense. It’s well past time for the state to prioritize people and not prisons and to help reform our state’s criminal legal system.”

A copy of the court’s order of judgement is here: https://www.aclusd.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/riis_clerks_j…

Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release