Drug charges dismissed for Virginia residents after judge rules Mitchell search lacked probable cause

Dec. 12—MITCHELL — A pair of Virginia residents who were facing multiple felonies for possessing psychedelic drugs and marijuana while driving by Mitchell had their charges dismissed after a judge ruled the vehicle search was conducted without probable cause.

The Sept. 5, 2021 vehicle search occurred when a South Dakota Highway Patrolman spotted what he believed were marijuana "roaches" while speaking to the driver, James Mahley, 25, of Richmond, Virginia, and passenger, Annmarie Fallon, 24, of Williamsburg, Virginia.

However, South Dakota Highway Patrol Trooper Nathan Monger's reasoning for the traffic stop was due to a tarp that "obstructed the rear license plate" on the vehicle, a violation under South Dakota law.

Judge Chris Giles explained the decision to dismiss the charges in a court document filed in early November. In the document, Giles explained the "roaches" that the trooper spotted through the window were "insufficient to provide new reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify elongating the traffic stop."

Giles added that the trooper's stop of the vehicle should have entailed Monger explaining to the driver the license plate "mistake" that prompted the stop, and "nothing more."

Among the drugs found in the vehicle were psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, MDMA pills and a jar of marijuana. Both Mahley and Fallon were charged with four counts of possession of a controlled substance, each Class 5 felonies that carry a maximum punishment of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In addition, the two were charged with marijuana misdemeanors from the vehicle search. But Giles' ruling dismissed all of the charges the two were facing.

Mahley and Fallon made motions to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle shortly after they posted bond in September 2021.

Giles' ruling was made after hearing testimony from attorneys representing Mahley and Fallon and trooper Monger during suppression hearings held in Davison County.

Initially, Mahley told the trooper that the roaches were rolled cigarettes, according to Monger. Mahley later admitted to the trooper that marijuana was in their vehicle, but his admission was essentially nullified due to the court's ruling.

"As I was talking to them, I noticed there was an ashtray with what appeared to be burnt marijuana cigarettes. They were sitting on the passenger near the center console area," Monger said during a July suppression hearing. "When I see something illegal in the vehicle, I will go back up and look again to confirm. When I noticed they were missing, that's when I went back and talked to him (Mahley)."

At one point during the suppression hearings, Monger testified that he did not smell the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle though he thought the roaches appeared to be marijuana cigarettes.

Mahley's attorneys, Sonny Walter and Ryan Kolbeck, argued the trooper's vehicle search went beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop.

"The sole purpose of stopping the vehicle was to make sure that it had a license on the back of the vehicle. Once it was stopped and it became apparent to you they had not violated that statute, you continued your investigation?" Walter asked at the July suppression hearing, which was met with a sustained objection by State's Attorney Jim Miskimins, allowing the trooper not to answer the inquiry.

Kolbeck also pointed out that the word "tarp" is not included in the state statute about the rear and front license plates on vehicles being visible. Kolbeck questioned Monger on whether he had ever pulled over a vehicle hauling a trailer with items making it difficult to see a rear license plate to which Munger replied "yes, but not for the statute (license plate statute)."

According to the license plate statute, "plates shall be at all times, so far as is reasonably possible, be kept clear and free of mud, ice, or snow so as to be clearly visible." While Giles indicated in court documents that Monger's traffic stop was warranted, he explained the "new reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity "did not rise to the level of providing the trooper probable cause to search the vehicle."