The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that breath test submissions under the state's 24/7 alcohol monitoring program constitute reports to law enforcement, reinstating a DUI defendant's conviction for making a false report. In *State v. Biteler* (S.D. 2025), the court reversed a circuit court decision that had overturned Amanda Biteler's magistrate court conviction.
Biteler was originally arrested and charged with driving under the influence, second offense, and released on bond with conditions requiring participation in the 24/7 alcohol monitoring program. As part of this program, she was required to submit regular breath samples for alcohol testing. The court later permitted her to enroll in "remote breath" testing, which allowed her to provide required breath samples through remote testing equipment rather than appearing in person at a monitoring facility.
The remote breath testing system includes security measures designed to verify the identity of the person submitting the sample. When an enrollee submits a breath test through the remote system, the testing device automatically takes a photograph of the person providing the sample. This photographic verification is intended to ensure that the correct individual is complying with their monitoring requirements.
During Biteler's participation in the remote breath program, one of her required test photographs was flagged by monitoring officials. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, the photograph did not appear to show Biteler herself providing the breath sample, suggesting that another person had blown into the testing device on her behalf. This alleged substitution violated the fundamental requirement that defendants personally comply with their court-ordered monitoring conditions.
Based on this evidence, prosecutors charged Biteler with making a false report to law enforcement under South Dakota Codified Laws 22-11-9(3). This statute criminalizes knowingly making false reports to law enforcement agencies. The magistrate court convicted Biteler of this charge, finding that her submission of a breath test sample through another person constituted a false report.
Biteler appealed her conviction to the circuit court, arguing that her breath test submission did not constitute a "report" under the false reporting statute. The circuit court agreed with this argument and reversed her conviction. The circuit court reasoned that breath test submissions under the 24/7 monitoring program did not fall within the statutory definition of a report to law enforcement, effectively ruling that the false reporting statute did not apply to monitoring compliance violations.
The State of South Dakota appealed the circuit court's reversal to the state Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement of Biteler's original conviction. The case was argued before the high court on Nov. 17, 2025, with Justice Myren authoring the court's opinion filed Dec. 22, 2025.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the circuit court's interpretation of the false reporting statute. In reversing the circuit court decision, the high court held that breath test submissions under the 24/7 alcohol monitoring program do constitute "reports" to law enforcement within the meaning of the statute. The court's reasoning suggests that when defendants submit breath samples as part of court-ordered monitoring, they are effectively reporting their compliance status to law enforcement agencies.
This interpretation recognizes that modern alcohol monitoring programs create ongoing reporting relationships between defendants and law enforcement. When participants submit breath samples, they are providing information about their alcohol consumption and compliance with court orders. Having another person provide a sample in their place constitutes a false report about their personal compliance status.
The decision reinstates Biteler's magistrate court conviction and establishes important precedent for how courts will handle violations of electronic monitoring programs. As more jurisdictions adopt remote monitoring technologies for DUI defendants and other offenders, this ruling clarifies that attempts to circumvent monitoring requirements can result in additional criminal charges.
The case highlights the evolving legal landscape surrounding electronic monitoring and supervision. As courts increasingly rely on remote breath testing, GPS monitoring, and other technological solutions for pretrial supervision and probation compliance, legal standards must adapt to address new forms of non-compliance and deception.
For DUI defendants subject to 24/7 monitoring requirements, the ruling serves as a warning that violations of monitoring protocols can result in separate criminal charges beyond the underlying DUI offense. The decision also reinforces that remote monitoring systems, while providing greater convenience and flexibility than in-person reporting, maintain the same legal requirements for honest compliance.
The case demonstrates how traditional criminal statutes like false reporting laws apply to modern supervision technologies. Courts must balance the benefits of remote monitoring programs with the need to maintain their integrity through appropriate legal consequences for violations.