State v. Parris: South Dakota Authorizes Opening of Closed Containers During Mental Health Protective Custody as a Noninvestigatory Administrative Search, and Clarifies Probable Cause for Emergency Detentions

Citation: State v. Parris, 2025 S.D. 27 (S.D. June 11, 2025)

Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota

Author: DeVaney, J. (Jensen, C.J., and Kern, Salter, and Myren, JJ., concurring)

Introduction

This decision resolves two recurrent questions at the intersection of mental health law and search-and-seizure doctrine:

What standard governs an officer’s decision to take a person into protective custody for an emergency mental health evaluation?
May officers open a small, closed container removed from the person during a safety search/inventory prior to transporting the person to a hospital for that evaluation?

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirms that:

Probable cause—assessed objectively and under the totality of the circumstances—governs emergency mental illness holds under SDCL 27A-10-3 and 27A-10-1; officers are not required to make a clinical diagnosis or credit a subject’s later self-assurances.
As part of a good-faith, noninvestigatory administrative search incident to civil protective custody, officers may open a closed container removed from the detainee if done to safeguard property, protect the subject and custodians, and prevent contraband from entering a secure facility.

The case arises from a welfare check on Nathan Parris, whose family and girlfriend reported suicidal statements, the removal of a vehicle tracker, and possession of a handgun. After officers took Parris into protective custody and prepared him for transport to a hospital for a mental health evaluation, they removed a small closed plastic container from his pocket and opened it. The container held methamphetamine. Parris moved to suppress, arguing lack of probable cause for protective custody and an unconstitutional opening of the container. The circuit court denied suppression, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court affirmed Parris’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance. It held:

Probable cause for protective custody existed under SDCL 27A-10-3, applying familiar criminal probable cause principles to the civil emergency detention context. The officers reasonably believed immediate intervention was necessary to protect Parris from self-harm based on reported suicidal texts (“I’m … done with life”), removal of a vehicle tracker, possession and unusual carry of a loaded handgun without a holster, and Parris’s emotional state and refusal to seek help that night.
Opening the closed container was permissible as part of a noninvestigatory administrative search incident to civil detention (inventory/safety search), consistent with Cordell v. Weber, 2003 S.D. 143, 673 N.W.2d 49. The purpose was to prevent dangerous items or contraband from entering the police vehicle and the hospital, to safeguard Parris’s property that would accompany him, and to insulate officers from false claims—not to further a criminal investigation.

Analysis

Statutory and Doctrinal Framework

SDCL 27A-10-3: Authorizes a peace officer to apprehend a person upon probable cause to believe the person requires emergency intervention under SDCL 27A-10-1, and to transport the person to a regional facility for evaluation by a qualified mental health professional (SDCL 27A-10-6).
SDCL 27A-10-1: Addresses petitions for emergency commitments where a person is alleged to be “severely mentally ill” and in a condition requiring immediate intervention for protection from physical harm to self or others.
SDCL 27A-1-1(24): Defines “severely mentally ill,” in part, as a substantial organic or psychiatric disorder significantly impairing judgment, behavior, or ability to cope with life demands.
Fourth Amendment and S.D. Const. art. VI, § 11: Protect against unreasonable searches and seizures; inventory and protective searches are exceptions when conducted in good faith for noninvestigatory, administrative purposes.

Precedents Cited and Their Role

State v. Edwards, 2024 S.D. 62, ¶ 14, 13 N.W.3d 199: Denial of suppression motions is reviewed de novo as to constitutional questions; factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50, ¶¶ 14, 19–20, 851 N.W.2d 719; State v. Hirning, 1999 S.D. 53, ¶ 9, 592 N.W.2d 600; Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996): Probable cause is assessed de novo by appellate courts, is objective, and considers the cumulative effect of facts in the totality of circumstances.
State v. Baysinger, 470 N.W.2d 840 (S.D. 1991); In re H.L.S., 2009 S.D. 92, 774 N.W.2d 803: Reinforce the totality-of-the-circumstances approach to probable cause.
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983) (plurality); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981): Probable cause deals with probabilities, not certainties.
State v. Horse, 2024 S.D. 4, 2 N.W.3d 383: Distinguished; the deferential standard for reviewing a magistrate’s warrant decision does not apply. Here, the Court assessed probable cause de novo.
Cordell v. Weber, 2003 S.D. 143, 673 N.W.2d 49: Key authority. Holds that a limited protective search incident to involuntary commitment is permissible to protect the individual and custodians, and that a good-faith, noninvestigatory inventory search is a reasonable administrative step after civil detention. Cordell also distinguishes later, evidence-gathering searches (e.g., seizing and lab testing clothing) as requiring probable cause because they are investigatory.
State v. Collins, 53 P.3d 953 (Utah Ct. App. 2002): Endorsed in Cordell; upholds a pat-down search incident to civil mental-health protective custody.
State v. Friend, 711 S.W.2d 508 (Mo. 1986), and State v. Salcedo, 695 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024): Support the legitimacy of noninvestigatory searches of persons prior to transport in civil protective custody for safety and facility security.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1) Probable Cause for Protective Custody Under SDCL 27A-10-3

The Court applied familiar probable cause principles from criminal law to the civil emergency-detention context. It rejected the notion that an officer must make a clinical diagnosis of “severe mental illness” or accept the subject’s later disclaimers. Instead, the inquiry is whether the facts known to officers created a fair probability that the person was severely mentally ill and that immediate intervention was necessary to prevent harm to self or others.

Key facts supporting probable cause included:

Multiple contemporaneous, alarming communications to close family and a girlfriend—“I’m … done with life”—characterized by those close to him as atypical for Parris.
Purposeful removal of a vehicle tracking device, impeding efforts to locate him.
Possession and casual, unsecured carry of a loaded handgun (no holster), and arrival at the residence while visibly armed.
Emotional distress, tearfulness, and articulations of deeper, longstanding relational pain with his father; acknowledgment of being “worked up” and recently “real upset.”
Refusal to seek help that evening, coupled with noncommittal statements about possibly seeking help later.

Even though Parris told officers he did not intend to kill himself and framed his prior statements as an attempt to “make a point,” the Court explained that probable cause does not require “hard certainties.” Given the totality of the circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for officers to conclude that Parris required emergency intervention to prevent self-harm. The Court thus affirmed the circuit court’s probable cause determination.

2) Authority to Open a Closed Container Removed During a Pre-Transport Search

Parris conceded the initial pat down and removal of items from his pockets prior to transport. He challenged only the subsequent opening of a small closed plastic container. The Court held the opening was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the South Dakota Constitution because it was:

Part of a noninvestigatory, administrative search incident to civil detention—aimed at safety, property safeguarding, and facility security—consistent with Cordell.
Justified by the plan that personal property would accompany Parris to the medical facility unless he asked to leave it behind (as he did with a dog collar transmitter). Ensuring that a small container did not hold a razor blade or contraband was necessary before allowing it into the police vehicle and hospital.
Not conducted to further a criminal investigation: Officers did not search Parris’s vehicle or arrest him that night; they transported him for a mental health evaluation after seizing only contraband discovered in the container.

The Court distinguished Cordell’s separate holding that later, investigatory use of seized property (e.g., next-day lab testing of clothing for accelerant) must rest on probable cause of criminality. Here, the opening of the container occurred during the initial custodial processing for a civil mental-health hold and served the administrative objectives recognized in Cordell.

What Parris Adds or Clarifies (The New Rule)

Emergency Detention Probable Cause: South Dakota explicitly applies criminal probable cause concepts (objective, totality-of-circumstances, probabilities rather than certainties) to emergency mental-health holds under SDCL 27A-10-3 and 27A-10-1. Officers need not resolve clinical questions; they must reasonably believe immediate intervention is necessary to prevent harm.
Closed Containers During Civil Protective Custody: The Court authorizes opening a small, closed container removed from a detainee’s person as part of a good-faith, noninvestigatory administrative search prior to transport to a medical facility, when the container is intended to accompany the detainee. The rationale is safety, property protection, and facility security—not evidence gathering.
Boundary with Investigatory Searches: Parris reinforces Cordell’s line: administrative processing searches are permissible; later or separate forensic testing for criminal investigation requires probable cause.

Impact

For Law Enforcement

Operational clarity: Officers have clear authority to conduct limited, noninvestigatory searches—including opening closed containers—as part of processing a person taken into civil protective custody and transported to a hospital.
Safety and security emphasis: The decision highlights facility security and the need to prevent weapons/contraband from entering police vehicles and hospitals as valid reasons to open containers.
Documentation matters: The Court credited testimony that property typically accompanies the detainee unless requested to be left behind and that the container was large enough to conceal a dangerous item. Officers should continue to document these facts and intentions.
Limits preserve legitimacy: The search must be noninvestigatory and tied to custodial logistics. Avoid expanding the search to vehicles or other areas absent independent cause, and avoid rummaging beyond what safety and inventory require.

For Defense and Civil Liberties

Challenge pretext: If facts suggest the “administrative” opening of a container was a pretext to search for evidence, suppression arguments remain viable under Cordell’s investigative/administrative distinction.
Scope constraints: The rationale is strongest when the item will travel with the detainee and could reasonably contain dangerous items. If property will not accompany the person, or if the container cannot plausibly hide a weapon or harmful contraband, the necessity of opening it is weaker.
State constitutional arguments: Although the Court did not conduct a separate state constitutional analysis in Parris, litigants may test whether Article VI, § 11 warrants greater protection in future cases.

For Courts and Facilities

Policy alignment: Agencies and hospitals should ensure written policies reflect that personal property will generally accompany the detainee, that safety screening is required pre-transport, and that officers perform only noninvestigatory inspections necessary to protect safety and property.
Training: Emphasize the line between administrative handling and investigative searches. Body-worn camera footage and contemporaneous explanations can be decisive.

Open Questions and Practical Limits

Standardized policy requirements: Parris grounds its holding in protective and inventory rationales without discussing whether a written policy is required to open closed containers in this context. Agencies should maintain clear policies to minimize litigation risk.
Nature and size of the container: The opinion notes the container could have concealed a razor blade. Future cases may probe the reasonableness of opening containers that cannot plausibly hide dangerous items (e.g., sealed blister packs).
Digital devices: Parris did not address searching the contents of electronic devices. Nothing in Parris suggests deviation from established limits on digital searches absent a warrant or applicable exception.
When property will be left behind: If the detainee chooses to leave an item at home, opening it may be unnecessary to meet safety or transport needs. This choice could narrow permissible search scope in some cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause (Civil Context): A common-sense, practical standard based on probabilities, not proof. The question is whether, given all the facts, a reasonable officer would believe immediate intervention is needed to prevent harm—not whether a person is definitively mentally ill.
Protective Custody for Mental Health: A civil, not criminal, detention used to get someone to a hospital for evaluation when they may harm themselves or others. After apprehension, a qualified professional—not the officer—assesses clinical criteria.
Administrative (Inventory/Safety) Search: A noninvestigatory search performed to protect the detainee’s property, safeguard officers and others, and prevent contraband from entering secure facilities. It is not conducted to find evidence of a crime.
Closed Container Doctrine (Here): Although closed containers often receive strong privacy protection, officers may open them during legitimate administrative processing in civil protective custody if doing so is necessary for safety/security and the property will accompany the detainee.
Investigatory vs. Administrative Line: Administrative searches are about custody logistics and safety; investigatory searches are about finding evidence of a crime. The latter typically require probable cause (and often a warrant) unless another exception applies.

Conclusion

State v. Parris sets a clear, workable standard for two recurring issues in mental health and policing. First, it confirms that probable cause—understood in its ordinary, objective, totality-based sense—governs officers’ decisions to initiate emergency mental health holds under SDCL 27A-10. Officers need not resolve clinical questions or accept post hoc disclaimers where the overall picture indicates imminent risk. Second, it authorizes the opening of closed containers removed from a detainee during pre-transport processing as part of a good-faith, noninvestigatory administrative search rooted in safety, property protection, and facility security. At the same time, Parris preserves Cordell’s crucial boundary: when the government’s purpose shifts from administrative processing to evidence gathering, heightened cause is required. Together, these principles provide law enforcement, defense counsel, and courts with a sensible framework that both facilitates emergency intervention and preserves core Fourth Amendment protections.