Revise a provision related to unauthorized possession of a controlled drug or substance.
Summary
HB 1115 revises South Dakota’s criminal drug-possession statute, § 22-42-5, governing unauthorized possession of controlled drugs or substances. The bill keeps the core prohibition in place: a person may not knowingly possess a controlled drug or substance unless it was lawfully obtained through a valid prescription or otherwise authorized by law. It also preserves the existing felony classifications for violations involving Schedule I or II substances and Schedule III or IV substances.
The bill adds clarifying language stating that a charge for unauthorized possession of a controlled substance when the substance has been absorbed into the human body, as described in § 22-42-1(1), must be charged only under § 22-42-5.1. In effect, this appears to direct prosecutors to use a specific statute for “ingested” or body-absorption cases rather than the general possession statute, likely to reduce overlap or uncertainty in charging decisions.
Impact
HB 1115 would amend South Dakota’s controlled substances code by narrowing how certain unauthorized-possession cases are charged, while leaving the underlying offense and felony penalty structure intact. It affects criminal defendants, prosecutors, and courts by specifying that cases involving a controlled substance absorbed into the human body must proceed under § 22-42-5.1 rather than under § 22-42-5. The bill does not change the class 5 felony treatment for Schedule I or II substances or the class 6 felony treatment for Schedule III or IV substances under the general possession statute.
Sentiment
There is little recorded debate in the available materials, and the only recorded vote was 11-0 to table the bill. That suggests the measure did not advance at that stage and may not have generated broad support or active opposition in committee. Because no transcript excerpts are available, the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the unanimous tabling vote, which indicates a lack of momentum rather than a clearly documented policy consensus.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s reallocation of certain drug-possession cases to a different charging statute. Supporters would likely view this as a technical clarification that improves consistency in prosecutions, while critics could see it as unnecessary or as altering how drug cases are handled without changing substantive law. The available record does not identify specific speakers or arguments, but the tabling vote suggests committee members may have had unresolved concerns about the need for the change, its practical effect on enforcement, or its interaction with existing controlled-substance statutes.
Revise provisions relating to the delivery, possession with intent to deliver, and possession of unauthorized articles in a state correctional facility, and to provide a penalty therefor.