State v. Parris

#30720-a-PJD
2025 S.D. 27

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

****

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NATHAN LEE PARRIS, Defendant and Appellant.

****

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

****

THE HONORABLE JANE WIPF PFEIFLE
Retired Judge

****

ERIC DAVIS
NATHANIEL NELSON of
Nelson Law
Sturgis, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant and
appellant.

MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General

JACOB DEMPSEY
Assistant Attorney General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff and
appellee.

****

ARGUED
JANUARY 14, 2025
OPINION FILED 06/11/25
#30720

DEVANEY, Justice

[¶1.] Law enforcement took Nathan Parris into protective custody and

placed him on a mental health hold after determining, based on his suicidal

statements and other actions, that emergency intervention was necessary. Prior to

placing Parris in the police vehicle for transport to the hospital for a mental health

evaluation, officers searched him and retrieved a small, closed container from his

pocket. They opened the container and discovered it contained methamphetamine.

Parris was later charged with possession of a controlled substance. The circuit

court denied Parris’s motion to suppress the drug evidence. Parris appeals his

conviction for possession of a controlled substance, claiming the court erred in

denying his suppression motion. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

[¶2.] On June 28, 2022, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Officers Trae Hood and

Cody McCracken of the Rapid City Police Department responded to a report of a

possible suicidal subject. This was prompted by a call from a woman, identified as

Grace, who lived out of state and requested that the officers check the welfare of 24-

year-old Nathan Parris of Rapid City. Grace identified Parris as her boyfriend and

explained she was concerned because that evening Parris had sent text messages to

her and to his father that were suicidal in nature. She told the officers that Parris

was having a hard time and that he “keeps saying he’s going to kill himself.”

According to Grace, this was out of character for Parris. Grace said in one of the

last communications from Parris, he told her he loved her. When she tried calling

him, he texted her and asked her to stop calling. She relayed that Parris was not

-1-
#30720

answering her, his mother, or anyone else. She said Parris owned a handgun and

she believed he might have it with him.

[¶3.] The officers arrived at the residence where Parris lived with his

mother and stepfather. Both were outside and Mother had been talking on the

phone with Grace. They told the officers Parris was not home and they did not

know where he was. The last time they saw him was about two hours earlier at the

residence, where he was talking on the phone with someone named Eric and having

an argument about a dog. Mother said at that time, she and Stepfather left to go to

a baseball game that Parris was also planning to attend, but he did not show.

When they got home, Parris and his dog were gone, as well as the pickup truck that

he drove. A tracking device that was usually in the pickup had been removed and

was left behind.

[¶4.] Mother showed the officers a text that Parris had sent to his father,

Rob, that evening, which had been forwarded to her. Rob was her ex-husband who

lived in Wyoming. The text stated, “Your truck will be in the Hills with me and my

dog if we are found. I’m fucking done with life.” Mother told the officers that Parris

had also sent Grace a text that said, “Don’t waste your time, I’m not worth it.”

According to Mother, Parris had never made suicidal threats before, but he had

recently been under a lot of stress. She told the officers that Parris owned a

handgun and likely had it with him.

[¶5.] After obtaining information describing Parris, his pickup, and his

cellphone number, Officer Hood went to his patrol vehicle and entered the

information into a national database for missing or endangered persons. He also

-2-
#30720

had Parris’s cell phone pinged to try to determine his location, but this proved to be

unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Stepfather went to Parris’s bedroom to look for the

handgun and confirmed to the officers that it was gone. Only an empty case and

gun holster were found in the room.

[¶6.] Throughout this timeframe, the officers remained on scene, either in

the garage or in the patrol vehicle, as they gathered information and attempted to

locate Parris. Mother continued to make multiple attempts to reach her son and

asked him to come home. She eventually spoke to him on the phone and he agreed

to return to the residence. When Parris arrived in the pickup, Mother went to talk

to him as Officers Hood and McCracken waited in the garage. After a short time,

Parris walked into the garage and the officers observed that he had a handgun

hanging out of his shorts pocket with no holster. As Officer McCracken performed a

cursory pat-down of Parris’s clothing, Officer Hood retrieved the gun and handed it

to another officer who had just arrived, Officer Kaleigh Crumb. The gun contained

a loaded magazine. Nothing else was retrieved from Parris at that time.

[¶7.] Parris agreed to talk with the officers as Mother and Stepfather stood

nearby. When Officer Hood inquired what was going on, Parris said he was upset

with how people had been treating him, particularly his father. He stated he was

supposed to get a puppy but just learned he would not and said his father had been

lying to him about the situation the last couple weeks. He explained that his

frustration was about more than just puppies but rather, “[i]t’s the way he’s treated

me my whole life.” Parris described several incidents involving his father that led

to his frustration. He told the officers, “I really just wanted him to feel like shit”

-3-
#30720

and “I just wanted him to feel the way I was feeling[.]” He continued, “I wanted

mostly to make a point to him. I never actually wanted to kill myself. But it’s just

very frustrating feeling like I wasn’t loved by my own father.”

[¶8.] When asked why he sent the text to Grace, Parris explained that she

had broken up with him six months prior but continued to talk to him and visit,

even though he wanted to sever their relationship. He relayed that he felt like no

one respected him or what he had to say. He further described how he had recently

injured his finger and was unable to work at his job.

[¶9.] Officer Hood then asked, “So tonight was just kind of a pile up?” and

Parris responded, “Yeah, the last twenty-four years of my life[.]” Throughout the

conversation, Parris’s demeanor was subdued and his emotional distress was

evident. He occasionally got choked up and teary-eyed. He acknowledged he was

“worked up” and “real upset the last couple days,” and had “a lot of other stuff going

on.” When asked whether he had considered talking to someone about it, Parris

admitted he had thought about it, but had not taken steps to do so. Officer Hood

asked him if he would be willing to talk to someone that night. Parris declined but

offered to take a phone number and schedule an appointment. At that point, Officer

Hood told him they were going to get him some help and “take [him] in and get

[him] someone to talk to.” When Parris claimed that was not needed, the officer

reminded him of the statements he had made. Parris replied that he was only

trying “to get them to understand how [he] was feeling” and that he “wouldn’t

actually do it.” He explained, “I was trying to get her to leave me alone, and I

wanted my dad to understand how I felt.”

-4-
#30720

[¶10.] Officer Hood told Parris they were going to take him into custody on a

mental health hold. At first Parris resisted the officers as they attempted to

handcuff him but eventually, he stopped struggling. Before Parris was put into the

vehicle to be transported to the hospital, the officers searched him and removed

items from his pockets. This included a small plastic closed container that Officer

Hood temporarily placed on the top of the patrol vehicle. Parris was then seated in

the patrol vehicle and buckled in. Officer Hood spent several minutes talking with

Mother, explaining what would happen next with the mental health hold and that

Parris would be evaluated by a qualified mental health professional.

[¶11.] While Officer Hood was speaking to Mother, Officer Crumb opened the

plastic container and discovered a clear plastic bag containing a white crystalline

substance that field-tested positive for methamphetamine. 1 Parris was then

transported to the hospital for the emergency mental health hold.

[¶12.] In August 2022, Parris was indicted on one count of possession of a

controlled substance. He moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing that law

enforcement did not have probable cause to take him into protective custody for the

emergency mental health hold. Later, at a pretrial motion hearing, Parris clarified

that, with respect to the search, he was not challenging the validity of the pat-down

conducted before he was transported to the hospital nor the resulting removal of the

items from his pockets. He acknowledged that a search was permissible under

Cordell v. Weber, 2003 S.D. 143, 673 N.W.2d 49. However, he claimed that the

1. The substance was later confirmed by a police department forensic chemist to
be methamphetamine.
-5-
#30720

subsequent opening of the closed plastic container found in his pocket was an

impermissible search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution and Article V, Section 11 of the South Dakota Constitution.

[¶13.] At the hearing, Officer Hood testified and his body-camera video from

the night of June 28 was received as an exhibit. He explained that he took Parris

into protective custody on the mental health hold because he believed Parris was a

danger to himself based on the totality of the events that evening. This included

Parris’s suicidal statements, the fact he removed the tracker from the pickup to

make it harder to locate, and that he had his firearm that night and was carrying it

in an unusual way without its holster.

[¶14.] Regarding the search of Parris’s pockets prior to the transport to the

hospital, Officer Hood testified it was necessary to ensure Parris had no contraband

or possible weapon or dangerous item that could harm law enforcement or others at

the facility. The officers did not expand their search to include Parris’s vehicle or

the home. Officer Hood testified the plastic container was large enough to have

held something like a razor blade and he was aware that contraband could be

hidden in any type of container. When asked by defense counsel why it was still

necessary to open the plastic container after it was already removed from Parris’s

possession, Officer Hood explained that law enforcement needed to check it before it

was allowed into the secure healthcare facility. He confirmed it was his intention

that the container would go to the facility along with Parris’s other items, because

any property goes with the subject unless they specifically request that something

be left. In fact, Parris had made such a request regarding a dog collar transmitter

-6-
#30720

that was hanging around his neck, which the officers removed and left at the

residence. Other property of Parris’s, including his cell phone, did go to the facility.

[¶15.] At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court orally denied the

motion to suppress. The court determined that probable cause existed to support

the officers’ belief that Parris was severely mentally ill and intended to harm

himself, and that an emergency intervention was necessary. The court further

ruled that the search of the plastic container was permitted under Cordell as a

noninvestigatory administrative search necessary to protect Parris, the officers, and

the facility. The court later entered a written order denying the motion.

Thereafter, a court trial was held on stipulated facts and the court found Parris

guilty of possession of a controlled substance. The court imposed a suspended

sentence and probation.

[¶16.] On appeal Parris raises the following issues, which we have restated:

1. Whether the circuit court erred when it determined that
law enforcement officers had probable cause to take
Parris into protective custody.

2. Whether law enforcement’s search of a closed container
removed from Parris’s pocket when he was taken into
protective custody was permissible.

Standard of Review

[¶17.] “We review the denial of a motion to suppress based on the alleged

violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de

novo standard of review.” State v. Edwards, 2024 S.D. 62, ¶ 14, 13 N.W.3d 199, 202

(citations omitted). “However, we review any underlying factual findings of the

-7-
#30720

circuit court under the clearly erroneous standard.” Id. (citations omitted) (cleaned

up).

Analysis and Decision

1. Whether the circuit court erred when it determined
that law enforcement officers had probable cause to
take Parris into protective custody.

[¶18.] Before analyzing the validity of the search of Parris, we must first

determine whether there was an appropriate basis for the officers to take him into

protective custody. SDCL chapter 27A-10 governs emergency mental illness holds.

Under SDCL 27A-10-3, “[a] peace officer may apprehend any person that he has

probable cause to believe requires emergency intervention under the criteria in

§ 27A-10-1.” The referenced statute, which governs the form and content of a

petition for emergency commitment, states that a petition may be submitted if the

“person is alleged to be severely mentally ill and in such condition that immediate

intervention is necessary for the protection from physical harm to self or others . . .

.” SDCL 27A-10-1. If the officer has probable cause to believe emergency

intervention is necessary, then the “officer shall transport the person to an

appropriate regional facility” where the person will be evaluated by a qualified

mental health professional. SDCL 27A-10-3, 27A-10-6.

[¶19.] Thus, as expressed in SDCL 27A-10-3, the applicable standard

governing the officers’ decision to take Parris into protective custody for purposes of

a mental health evaluation under the emergency mental illness hold statutes is

probable cause. We review a circuit court’s probable cause determination under a

-8-
#30720

de novo standard. 2 State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50, ¶ 14, 851 N.W.2d 719, 724; State v.

Hirning, 1999 S.D. 53, ¶ 9, 592 N.W.2d 600, 603 (quoting Ornelas v. United States,

517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)).

[¶20.] When assessing whether such probable cause existed here, we are

guided by well-recognized principles in the context of probable cause for a criminal

arrest. In that context we have held that “[p]robable cause . . . exists where the

facts and circumstances within the . . . officers’ knowledge and of which they have

reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief

by a person of reasonable caution that a suspect has committed or is committing an

offense.” Smith, 2014 S.D. 50, ¶ 19, 851 N.W.2d at 724 (first alteration added)

(quoting Hirning, 1999 S.D. 53, ¶ 13, 592 N.W.2d at 604). “Probable cause deals

with probabilities that are not technical but only the factual and practical

considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent persons, not legal

technicians, act.” Id. The Court views “the action of the . . . officers on the basis of

the cumulative effect of [the] facts in the totality of the circumstances.” State v.

Baysinger, 470 N.W.2d 840, 845–46 (S.D. 1991) (citation omitted); see also In re

H.L.S., 2009 S.D. 92, ¶ 15, 774 N.W.2d 803, 808 (recognizing “totality of the

circumstances” approach). “Additionally, probable cause is measured against an

2. The State cites the standard of review in State v. Horse, where the Court
recognized our deferential review of a court’s determination of probable cause
to issue a search warrant. 2024 S.D. 4, ¶ 17, 2 N.W.3d 383, 390 (noting that
this Court is “not empowered to conduct an after-the-fact de novo probable
cause determination[]” when reviewing a court’s issuance of a search
warrant). However, that standard is inapplicable here because we are not
reviewing the issuance of a search warrant.
-9-
#30720

objective standard.” Smith, 2014 S.D. 50, ¶ 20, 851 N.W.2d at 725 (citations

omitted).

[¶21.] In the context of an apprehension for the purposes of a mental health

evaluation, Parris asserts that the facts here do not support a determination that

probable cause existed to meet the criteria in SDCL 27A-10-1. He argues there was

no basis to believe he was severely mentally ill under the definitions in Title 27A

governing mentally ill persons, which defines severe mental illness, in part, as

“substantial organic or psychiatric disorder of thought, mood, perception,

orientation, or memory which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, or ability to

cope with the basic demands of life.” SDCL 27A-1-1(24). He further argues there

was insufficient evidence to support a finding that immediate intervention was

necessary to keep him from harming himself. He claims that, although his actions

that evening were “not the right way to handle things[,]” his messages “were not

explicit suicidal threats but rather cries for help and attention,” which he claimed

were successful. Parris points to the fact that he told the officers he did not intend

to harm himself, and he contends that “[o]ne incident of arguably uttering vague

suicidal ideations” was insufficient to constitute severe mental illness.

[¶22.] Parris’s arguments misconstrue the probable cause standard. Before

apprehending and transporting a person to an appropriate facility for a mental

health examination, a law enforcement officer is not required to make a diagnosis

that the person is, in fact, severely mentally ill under the statutory definition, and

conclude that he will actually harm himself. Indeed, whether the person ultimately

meets the definitions and criteria of the mental illness statutes are matters within

-10-
#30720

the realm of the qualified mental health professionals, not law enforcement officers.

SDCL 27A-10-3 requires only that the officer has probable cause to believe that the

person requires emergency intervention under the criteria in SDCL 27A-10-1. It is

long understood that probable cause determinations do not demand that an officer’s

belief be proven correct, as “[t]he process does not deal with hard certainties, but

with probabilities.” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983) (plurality opinion)

(quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981)).

[¶23.] In this case, the officers were presented with concerning reports by

people close to Parris, including his mother with whom he lived, that he had been

under a lot of stress lately and was emotional and upset that night. He missed

joining his family at the baseball game as planned and he disappeared, taking his

loaded handgun with him, after first removing the tracking device from the pickup

so he could not be located. He sent a suicidal text to his father expressly

threatening that he was “done with life.” He told Grace he loved her and that she

shouldn’t “waste her time” as he “wasn’t worth it.” According to those close to

Parris, this was unusual and something he had not done before. When making a

probable cause determination, the officers reasonably perceived these actions and

statements as more than just vague and inchoate suicidal thoughts.

[¶24.] Additionally, once Parris came back to the residence and spoke to the

officers, he did not dispel their concerns. Parris was carrying his loaded firearm

casually in his pocket, not secured in a holster. Also, when talking to the officers,

he explained his frustrations, especially those relating to his relationship with his

father—a source of obvious emotional pain for Parris that caused him to become

-11-
#30720

choked up and teary-eyed as he spoke. He admitted that he wanted to make his

father feel the way he had been feeling. Parris acknowledged he had been quite

upset lately, with his problems seeming like a “pile-on.” But despite all of this,

when Officer Hood asked if Parris had sought help, he said he had not. He was not

willing to do so that evening and made only non-committal comments about doing

so in the future.

[¶25.] While Parris claimed he never intended to kill himself, the officers

understandably decided not to simply ignore his statements and actions that

evening and assume he would be fine with the support of his family members. The

totality of the circumstances presented to the officers in this case included not only

suicidal statements and actions suggesting that Parris was going to carry out his

expressed intentions, but also his concerning emotional state when interacting with

the officers. Therefore, the officers’ belief that Parris’s conduct indicated he was

suffering from a severe mental illness and posed a danger to himself such that

emergency intervention was warranted was “reasonable and prudent” and

supported by probable cause. 3

2. Whether law enforcement’s search of a closed
container removed from Parris’s pocket when he
was taken into protective custody was permissible.

[¶26.] Parris concedes that the search of his person and the removal of the

plastic closed container from his pocket prior to his transport to the hospital was

3. While this Court assesses probable cause based on the facts and
circumstances leading to the officers’ decision, comments made later by
Parris’s counsel at sentencing are notable. Counsel explained that Parris
“was undergoing a pretty severe mental health crisis” the night the officers
encountered him.
-12-
#30720

proper and served a legitimate protective purpose as a good-faith, noninvestigatory

inventory search. His challenge on appeal, as it was before the circuit court, is

limited to law enforcement’s opening of the container after it was removed and

while he was handcuffed and seated in the patrol vehicle. The State contends, and

the circuit court agreed, that this search was appropriate under Cordell.

[¶27.] Cordell involved a suspect in an arson investigation who, during an

interview at the sheriff’s office, was determined to be potentially suicidal. As a

result, he was placed on a mental health hold at the jail and was thereafter held for

an involuntary commitment. Because he was required to change into a jail

jumpsuit, his own clothing was placed into a locker at the jail. The next day, law

enforcement seized his clothing from the locker and sent it to a laboratory for

testing, which revealed the possible presence of an accelerant.

[¶28.] Cordell was a habeas corpus case involving an allegation that the

defendant’s counsel failed to properly challenge the clothing test results. The Court

noted in Cordell that “[t]he Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees

citizens protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by government actors.”

Id. ¶ 12, 673 N.W.2d at 53. Therefore, when law enforcement conducts a

warrantless search of a person’s property, the State must demonstrate that the

search is permissible. Id. However, the Cordell decision focused on whether

Cordell had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his clothing located

in the jail locker such that a Fourth Amendment concern was implicated.

[¶29.] The Court first analyzed whether a person taken into protective

custody pursuant to the involuntary commitment statutes can lawfully be searched.

-13-
#30720

The Court looked to State v. Collins, 53 P.3d 953, 956 (Utah Ct. App. 2002), where

the Utah court approved a pat-down search of an individual before he was placed

into protective custody under the civil mental illness statutes, likening it to a search

incident to arrest in a criminal case. Cordell, 2003 S.D. ¶ 16, 673 N.W.2d at 54

(citing Collins, 53 P.3d at 956). Cordell recognized the Collins court’s determination

that the purpose of a search incident to protective custody “is to protect not only the

peace officer but also the mentally ill individual and others.” Id. (quoting Collins,

53 P.3d at 957). Therefore, “the protective search and subsequent seizure were

reasonable and not violative of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (citing Collins, 53 P.3d

at 957). Recognizing that a person placed in protective custody has a lesser

expectation of privacy, the Cordell Court agreed with Collins and held that “a

reasonable and limited protective search incident to involuntary commitment is

permitted in order to protect the mentally ill individual and that person’s

custodians.” Id. ¶ 17, 673 N.W.2d at 54−55.

[¶30.] Additionally, Cordell further held that “a limited search under these

circumstances is consistent with South Dakota law permitting inventory searches

after a person is taken into custody.” Id. ¶ 18, 675 N.W.2d at 55. In such cases, “‘a

good faith, noninvestigatory inventory search’ is permissible.” Id. (citations

omitted). This is viewed as “an incidental administrative step” that “is supported

by a need to (1) safeguard property; (2) insulate the police from groundless claims

that property was not protected; and, (3) secure the detention facility by preventing

introduction of weapons or contraband.” Id. (citations omitted). Cordell noted that

these types of searches apply “equally to criminal arrestees and civil detainees.” Id.

-14-
#30720

¶ 19. The Court thus upheld the initial removal and placement of Cordell’s clothing

in the jail locker as “a reasonable administrative step following his detention.” Id. ¶

20.

[¶31.] Here, Parris does not dispute that the above principles permitted law

enforcement to conduct the search of his clothing and the removal of the plastic

container from his pocket, along with other items that would have otherwise

remained on his person, before he was placed in the patrol vehicle and transported

to the hospital. But his arguments presume that the rationale identified in Cordell

and the cases cited therein did not similarly permit the officers to open the

container. Parris contends the additional analysis in Cordell regarding the

subsequent seizure of Cordell’s clothing for further testing—actions that this Court

determined must be based on probable cause to believe the clothing was associated

with criminal activity—applies to the opening of the container here. See Id. ¶ 23,

673 N.W.2d at 56. This contention is misplaced.

[¶32.] Unlike the facts in Cordell, the search of the container found on

Parris’s person was not done in conjunction with an ongoing criminal investigation.

Rather, the search of the container was part of the good-faith, noninvestigatory

“administrative step” that was related to “a legitimate custodial purpose.” See id.

¶¶ 18, 19, 673 N.W.2d at 55 (quoting State v. Friend, 711 S.W.2d 508, 510−11 (Mo.

1986)); see State v. Salcedo, 695 S.W.3d 109, 117 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024) (applying

rationale of Friend and upholding search of person prior to being taken into civil

protective custody and transported to a mental health facility). Indeed, the search

of the container was warranted by the need to safeguard Parris’s property, insulate

-15-
#30720

the police from groundless claims, and ensure that no weapons or contraband were

brought into the facility to which he was being taken.

[¶33.] Officer Hood testified that it was necessary to ascertain the contents of

the container to keep possible dangerous items or contraband out of the law

enforcement vehicle and the facility where they were taking Parris. He explained

that the initial intention was to send the container, along with Parris’s other

personal effects, with him to the facility. When it was found to contain

methamphetamine, only this contraband was then seized and taken to the police

department. It is apparent from a review of the video recording introduced as

evidence that the law enforcement officers were not searching for evidence of a

crime when determining whether any of the items in Parris’s pockets could

accompany him to the hospital. This is further supported by the fact they did not

search the vehicle he was driving or arrest him for possession of the

methamphetamine and take him to jail that night. As such, this is not a scenario

like the civil detention in Cordell in which law enforcement sought to further search

or examine, for purposes of a criminal investigation, an item already in their

possession. See id. ¶ 21, 673 N.W.2d at 56.

[¶34.] For these reasons, we conclude that, just as the search of Parris was

reasonable and constitutionally permissible, so too was the search of the closed

container removed from his pocket. Because no constitutional violation exists, the

circuit court did not err in denying Parris’s motion to suppress the drug evidence.

[¶35.] We affirm.

-16-
#30720

[¶36.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and KERN, SALTER, and MYREN, Justices,

concur.

-17-