Modify requirements on the use of mobile electronic devices while driving.
Summary
House Bill 1117 revises South Dakota’s distracted-driving law governing the use of mobile electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle. The bill generally continues the prohibition on using a mobile device while driving unless the device is used in hands-free mode, and it keeps the existing criminal penalty for violations as a Class 2 misdemeanor. It also preserves and clarifies several exceptions, including use by public safety personnel and utility workers in the course of duty, emergency calls and reporting, GPS/navigation functions, and limited dialing or call-activation functions.
The bill adds a specific exception for operators of certain agricultural equipment, allowing a mobile electronic device to be held in the hand while driving agricultural equipment that is not designed to exceed 25 miles per hour, so long as the equipment is not a truck. This creates a narrower carveout for farm operations while leaving the broader hands-free requirement in place for most drivers.
Impact
HB1117 would amend South Dakota Codified Law § 32-26-47.1, the state’s mobile-device-while-driving statute. Its main legal effect is to refine the scope of prohibited conduct and exceptions, especially by expressly allowing handheld device use for certain low-speed agricultural equipment operators. The bill would continue to subject most violations to a Class 2 misdemeanor and would affect motorists, law enforcement, emergency responders, utility workers, and agricultural operators.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests mixed but not broadly unified support. The bill received a favorable committee vote on an amended version, but the floor vote was unsuccessful, indicating that while some lawmakers supported the distracted-driving restrictions and the agricultural exception, enough members opposed the measure or its amended form to prevent passage. No committee transcript is available, so the record shows the outcome more clearly than the underlying debate.
Contention
The most notable point of contention appears to be the balance between roadway safety and practical exemptions. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a targeted update to distracted-driving rules that preserves public safety while recognizing emergency, utility, and farm-related needs. Opposition may have centered on whether the agricultural exception was too broad or too narrow, or on the overall criminalization of handheld device use while driving. The failed floor vote suggests disagreement not just over the policy, but over the amended version specifically.