One broken taillight isn't always reason enough for a police officer to pull you over.

The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled last week that a driver isn't breaking state law so long as they have two working brake lights. That little red bar in your back window? That one counts.

But the state's highest court in a 3-2 decision also declined to dismiss a drunken driving arrest stemming from an officer's misinterpretation of the brake light law.

In April 2014, a Sioux Falls police officer pulled over a 2004 Hyundai Sonata because its left brake light did not brighten as it came to a halt at a stop light.

The driver, Apolinar Lerma, had a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit to drive, according to police. He was arrested and charged with drunken driving.

Lerma's attorney argued the traffic stop was illegal because his client still had two functioning brake lights, one on the right and another in the back window. He sought to have evidence from the stop thrown out.

A circuit court judge concluded it was "unreasonable" for the officer to think Lerma was breaking the law. State prosecutors appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

On Friday, three of the state's five Surpreme Court justices disagreed.

“We conclude that it was objectively reasonable for an officer in the position of Officer (Brian) Wassenaar to believe that (the defendant’s) inoperative left brake light constituted a violation of the law,” they wrote.

They cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says evidence shouldn't be thrown out if police are reasonably interpreting a confusing law.

Two dissenting judges argued the state's law on brake lights is "clear and unambiguous," and that the officer who made the arrest understood it but chose to follow his own interpretation.

“In this case, officer Wassenaar acted upon a misunderstanding of a clear statute," they wrote, "and, arguably, on his own idea of what the law ought to be.”

Read or Share this story: