The South Dakota Supreme Court has returned an opinion in a case orbiting a hit-and-run, but the details run much deeper than a simple car wreck.
The case instead calls into question the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
The case, State of South Dakota V. Osman, stems from a traffic crash in Sioux Falls in August of 2020. Just after midnight, the Mielitz family reported a hit-and-run incident that severely damaged their car.
In the following 911 call, the couple reported a man running from the scene. Shortly after, Sioux Falls police officer Chris Treadway came across Adil Osman running in the opposite direction of the scene. Osman matched the description provided by the Mielitz family, though their testimony indicates they only saw the driver from half-a-block away.
After detaining Osman, officers and the family conducted a show-up identification.
Police detained Osman and brought him to the family so they could identify him. Officers told the couple Osman was the driver before they saw him. He was led from the back of a patrol car in handcuffs.
Video of the moment also shows the couple expressing doubt before positively identifying Osman as the driver.
Osman was charged with driving under the influence, leaving the scene of an accident, and open container violation. He pleaded not guilty.
In court, motions were made to throw out the Mielitz’s identification, arguing the identification process was overly suggestive and violated his due process rights.
Lower courts ultimately ruled the ID of Osman was permissible and considered the family to be reliable witnesses. At trial, the couple again testified they were certain Osman was the driver of the vehicle.
The Supreme Court ruled suggestive procedures do not inherently violate due process rights. Instead, Osman’s council was unable to establish the identification was not only suggestive, but unnecessarily suggestive to the point of being impermissible in court.
There was one dissenting vote from Justice Scott Myren. In his opinion, he says communication between officers and the family identifying Osman as the driver prior to the ID created a significant opportunity for misidentification.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion ruled Osman’s motion to suppress the Mielitz’s testimony from the night of the crash was not denied in error.
Further, the court ruled other circumstantial and direct evidence of Osman’s guilt are present in the case.