A late-session rally from law enforcement lobbyists quashed a South Dakota legislative effort to bar the jailing of 24/7 sobriety program participants for their inability to pay.

Codifying constitutional prohibitions against locking up people for debt without a plan to backfill sheriff’s office budgets, the lobbyists said, could spell the death of a program that supporters and opponents of House Bill 1176 both described as a critical public safety tool.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 5-4 to table the bill last week. A move to place the bill on the Senate calendar Monday failed 8-26.

Under the 24/7 program, judges release people accused of crimes linked to alcohol or drugs from jail as they await trial, on the condition they pay daily or weekly fees for alcohol or drug testing to prove they’re sober as the case is pending.

State House panel endorses bill to bar jail time for inability to pay sobriety program fees

Participants pay $2 a day for twice-daily breath tests for alcohol, or between $40 and $60 a week for alternative testing methods like alcohol monitoring bracelets or drug patches.

Those who fail to remain sober are returned to jail, after which a judge decides whether to release them back onto the program. If a person fails to show up, a warrant can be issued for their arrest. 

The bill from Rep. Peri Pourier, R-Rapid City, was filed in response to a class action lawsuit in Pennington County that alleged some participants were being jailed not for failure to remain sober, but because they couldn’t afford to pay the program’s upfront fees.

It is unconstitutional to incarcerate a person for failure to pay a debt alone, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent. 

The county settled the lawsuit in federal court. It agreed to cease the practice of threatening jail time for an inability to pay, and to pay damages to the plaintiffs who had been jailed for their inability to pay — $10,000 to the main plaintiff, and $1,000 apiece to another 37 people.

Pourier’s bill, which would change state law to explicitly state that no one can be jailed for failure to pay 24/7 fees alone, passed though the House Judiciary Committee and the full House of Representatives without a no vote.

In committee and on the House floor, Pourier referenced South Dakota Searchlight reporting on the Pennington County lawsuit as a motivating factor for bringing the bill.

Attorney General’s Office: Future uncertain after lawsuit

Grant Flynn, a representative of the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office, told lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee last Tuesday that he had no issue with the concept of codifying the constitutional prohibition on debtor’s prisons into law as it relates to the 24/7 program.

His concern, however, was for the program’s viability. Flynn said his office had explored ways to shore up 24/7 if the bill passes and a mass of participants claim indigency. 

The program is locally operated. Flynn said county sheriffs have always been happy to administer the program not only because it helps keep people sober, but because it does so without burdening local budgets.

Those on the program who wouldn’t be released from jail on bond without it, he said, appreciate their pretrial freedom.

“They can be with their families, they can go to work, they can continue to live their productive lives while they address this mistake that they made,” said Flynn.

Civil rights settlement bars jail time for those who can’t pay sobriety monitoring fees

Staci Ackerman, executive director of the South Dakota Sheriffs’ Association, told the Judiciary Committee that many sheriffs are worried about counties picking up a greater share of program costs.

Flynn and Ackerman asked the Judiciary Committee to refer the bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee to determine its potential financial impact. 

When that committee considered the bill on Thursday, Pourier offered an amendment that would’ve pulled funding from the state’s 24/7 sobriety program fund to support counties, and would have allowed the state and counties to solicit donations to bolster the fund.

Flynn told appropriators that wasn’t enough to address his concerns.

“This program is too important to rely on some future source of funding someday,” Flynn said.

If the state explicitly exempts the indigent from the responsibility to pay in the offender-funded program, Flynn said, people will use the law to duck fees they might otherwise pay.

“People are going to find more and more ways to fall into this category to avoid paying those fees,” he said.

Had the bill become law, a person could request a hearing and ask a judge to deem them unable to pay. Those who are able to convince a judge they can’t afford the fees could be ordered to pay them later, at the time of their sentencing.

Eric Erickson, a lobbyist for the South Dakota State’s Attorney’s Association, said people who can’t afford to pay fees before sentencing rarely pay their fines afterward.

Dick Tieszen, who also lobbies for the Sheriffs’ Association, told Senate appropriators he sees a bleak future for the program — which operates in nearly every county in South Dakota — if the law changes without a new funding source.

“I think we’re going to see a program that’s been successful disappear,” said Tieszen. 

Push to revive bill fails

Pourier said she’d been willing to work with law enforcement to identify a funding source, and told South Dakota Searchlight that discussions had taken place in good faith.

She told the Senate Appropriations Committee that counties currently have a collective total of between $20,000 and $25,000 in delinquencies from people who haven’t paid their 24/7 fees. 

The state’s 24/7 sobriety fund, which would have been used to help counties pay down those delinquencies had Pourier’s amended bill become law, collected around $1.2 million in 2025. The state gets a portion of program fees to pay for a state-level 24/7 coordinator, and for other program expenses, including contracts for software. It can also bolster the fund with grants or gifts, but nearly all the money in the fund comes from offender fees.

The $1.2 million collected in 2025 was enough to pay the state’s 24/7 operations bills and then some. At the end of fiscal year 2025, the fund had $72,686 left over. It had surpluses of $10,500 in 2024, $38,240 in 2023 and $40,877 in 2022. 

Concerns about a growth in delinquencies of an uncertain size may be legitimate, Bonesteel Republican Sen. Mykala Voita said, but that shouldn’t excuse a failure to pass a law saying the state will adhere to the U.S. Constitution.

If the figures prove overwhelming, Voita said, lawmakers can address them and find a funding source in future sessions.

“We have this court case that’s setting precedent that’s saying how this was being run is unconstitutional,” said Voita, who unsuccessfully moved to send the bill to the Senate floor. 

Sen. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, supported two motions meant to shut down debate on the bill: One to table it, another to defeat it.

“Let’s allow the program to continue to be run how it’s been run,” Howard said.

Both her motions failed by one vote, just like Voita’s motion to pass it to the Senate floor. 

Voita’s final motion was to send the bill to the floor with no recommendation, which passed by one vote.

On Monday, Brandon Republican Sen. Steve Kolbeck asked his colleagues to put the bill on the chamber’s calendar. He reminded them it had passed the House with overwhelming support. Red Dawn Foster, D-Pine Ridge, told the chamber that supporters had new numbers to present on the bill’s viability, but the move failed.