Most South Dakotans have probably never heard of a crime called “sliming.” I had not, until the recent Taco Bell incident prompted me to look into South Dakota’s criminal laws. Sliming is the informal name sometimes given to the crime of intentionally throwing, spitting, smearing, or otherwise causing bodily fluids or human waste to come into contact with another person.

The Taco Bell Incident

On September 29, 2026, Rapid City police were called to a local Taco Bell after a vehicle reportedly drove the wrong way through the restaurant’s drive-through and the driver became involved in a confrontation with employees. The vehicle departed the scene before officers arrived. A sheriff’s deputy later spotted the vehicle and attempted to stop it. This led to a chase, with the driver and passenger abandoning the vehicle and fleeing on foot. The driver, 24-year-old Shawn Hill, was found unconscious in a field after apparently falling and knocking himself out. He was subsequently taken to a hospital.

After speaking with the Taco Bell employees, police determined that Hill had spit on an employee during the confrontation before leaving the restaurant. Thereafter, Hill was arrested and booked on several charges, including DUI, obstruction, second-degree eluding, and sliming.

South Dakota’s Sliming Law

The idea of criminalizing sliming conduct is not new. Such laws have often been aimed at a very practical concern: protecting prison guards and other correctional personnel from inmates who deliberately spit on them or throw bodily fluids or human waste at them. Correctional officers can be exposed to blood, saliva, urine, feces, and other bodily substances while performing their jobs. Deliberately exposing an officer to such substances is not merely disgusting, but can create legitimate health and safety concerns.

South Dakota enacted a prison-related sliming offense in 1997. Under the statute, it is a felony for an incarcerated person to intentionally cause bodily fluids or human waste to come into contact with a Department of Corrections employee (or other specified individuals). The South Dakota Supreme Court used the term sliming in State v. Schouten, 2005 SD 122, 707 N.W.2d 820, a case involving an inmate who spit on a correctional officer.

But something rather significant happened in South Dakota during that same period. In 2002, the Legislature enacted a separate statute, SDCL 22-18-26.1, making it a misdemeanor to intentionally cause specified bodily fluids or human waste to come into contact with individuals performing public functions, including law-enforcement officers, firefighters, court-services officers, and emergency medical technicians. Then came Senate Bill 43 in 2005. As part of a broader revision of South Dakota’s criminal code, the Legislature changed the language of SDCL 22-18-26.1, removing the list of specially protected occupations and instead protecting “any other person” from sliming.  The amendment became effective July 1, 2006.

Today, SDCL 22-18-26.1 provides that any person who, with the intent to assault, throws, smears, spits or causes human blood, vomit, saliva, mucus, semen, excrement, urine, or human waste to come into contact with any other person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The statute does not criminalize accidental contact; it requires an intent to assault.

There continues to be a distinction in South Dakota for prison-related offenses. An inmate who slimes a Department of Corrections employee is subject to prosecution for a Class 6 felony under SDCL 22-18-26, whereas the sliming of “any other person” is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Notice what happened. A law that began as a means of protecting correctional officers and other public servants was transformed into a law protecting virtually everyone.

Other States

I recently conducted a 50-state survey to see how other states deal with this conduct. I identified 22 states with specific statutory provisions addressing bodily-fluid or human-waste assaults. Most of those laws are considerably narrower than South Dakota’s present law. They typically protect correctional officers, police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, health-care workers, or other specifically identified persons.  However, 2 states – Alabama and Delaware – have extended protections to the general public.

All of this makes South Dakota history somewhat unusual. What began as a law designed primarily to protect public employees became a law protecting ordinary citizens as well. So, the next time you hear the word sliming, don’t assume it is merely slang. In South Dakota and some other jurisdictions, it is a real crime.

Note: In regard to the preparation of this week’s column, the author would like to thank Attorney Sarah Baron Houy and Claudia Baron for their assistance and input. 

Anyone desiring to communicate with the Author, may do so by sending an e-mail to the author at rogermbaron@gmail.com .