I got a surprise yesterday while attending the City Council working session. As some of you may or may not know, while the state shares revenue with alcohol sales, they don’t reimburse the city police department for conducting alcohol sale stings. I think a solution would be the city PD to stop doing the stings and require the Highway Patrol (which gets state funding) to do the stings.

Kenny Anderson says the problem is that people who fail the stings are not the owners or managers in most cases, it’s the clerks. While this is true, it is also the responsibility of the company to properly train their employees AND hire responsible people.

I have often said the solution is simple. Require anyone who is purchasing alcohol or tobacco to put their ID in a scanner. If they don’t or if the ID is incorrect, the cash register would refuse the sale. Of course, this would piss off a lot of older people who clearly look old enough to purchase. This would also probably get blow back from the malt beverage industry. I know a few years ago I read a study that said over 30% of beer that is consumed in this country is drunk by underage people. That’s a lot of lost revenue if roadblocks are put for these people to purchase.

Texting Ban – Still pointless & Unneeded

When the city decided to pass a texting ban, I agreed with councilor Staggers and some members of the Highway Patrol and SFPD, that it was unneeded because there are already laws in place like distracted driving and reckless driving that cover texting and driving. If you cause an accident while texting or talking on your phone, or  eating a hamburger or scratching your butt while driving, you will get one of these tickets. Don’t get me wrong, I think texting while driving is idiotic, but since the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday about getting a warrant to search someone’s phone, it is going to be a lot harder to prove someone was texting and driving. That pesky US Constitution and 4th Amendment prevailed once again. Just wondering when our state legislature and city council are going to bother reading it and stop passing pointless laws and ordinances?

By l3wis

3 thoughts on “Why is the city paying for something the state should cover?”
  1. 1. Maybe they just STOP conducting alcohol stings and go fight real crime. What a waste of resources. What a police state. The more I think about it my brief stint in Central Sioux Falls reminded me of North Minneapolis.

    2. I don’t know how the State Constititution of SD works but at least in MN (until they passed an unconstitutional seatbelt law) a police officer couldn’t effect a traffic stop unless they witnessed a misdemeanor or higher. The SF “anti-texting” city ordinance is a petty misdemeanor. When cops try to pull people over for petty misdemeanors it’s only a ruse to go on a fishing expedition and try and find other things. Again, police state.

  2. Dude – the 21st century is now 14+ years old. There needs to be at least another 6 years before SD will realize it.

  3. The texting ban is just another excuse to violate a person’s civil liberties, allowing Law Enforcement to pull them over. Again, the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply in South Dakota. Police are allowed to text and bullshit on their CAD system car to car, allowing them not to use their phones so the public could see it. This is the typical, “I don’t practice what I preach because I’m not the type of person I’m preaching to” sentiment of a Police State.

Comments are closed.