Authorize a law enforcement officer to temporarily detain an individual who is reasonably suspected of committing a crime and to provide a penalty therefor.
Summary
House Bill 1153 would authorize a law enforcement officer to stop and temporarily detain a person in a public place when the officer reasonably suspects the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. During that stop, the officer may demand the person’s name and may request the person’s address and date of birth. The bill also limits the detention to the time reasonably necessary to carry out the stop, and in any event to no more than 60 minutes, unless the person is arrested.
The bill creates a new offense for refusing to provide one’s name when required under the stop-and-detain provision. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to give their name would be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. The measure is framed as a law enforcement tool for investigative stops in public places and would add a new section to South Dakota’s criminal procedure statutes.
Impact
HB1153 would expand express statutory authority for South Dakota law enforcement officers to conduct temporary investigative detentions based on reasonable suspicion in public places and to require identifying information during those stops. It would add a new provision to chapter 23A-35 and create a Class 2 misdemeanor penalty for knowingly or intentionally refusing to provide one’s name. The bill would affect individuals subject to police stops, as well as law enforcement practices and criminal procedure standards governing the scope and duration of detentions.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a law-and-order proposal intended to give officers clearer authority during investigative stops. Because the bill was introduced without accompanying discussion in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond noting that it is a public-safety and policing measure.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are civil liberties and police authority. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a tool for officer safety and crime prevention, while critics may object to the breadth of “reasonably suspects,” the power to demand a person’s name, and the criminal penalty for refusing to identify oneself. The 60-minute maximum detention and requirement that the stop remain near the original location may be seen as limits on police discretion, but opponents could still argue the bill increases the risk of intrusive stops and coercive encounters.