Rep. Peri Pourier, R-Rapid City, speaks on the floor of the South Dakota House during the 2025 legislative session at the Capitol in Pierre. (Photo by John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)
A bill that would stop the practice of jailing people who can’t afford to pay sobriety program fees sailed through a South Dakota House of Representatives panel Monday morning at the Capitol in Pierre.
The 12 members of the House Judiciary Committee present at the meeting — including some lawmakers who opposed an earlier effort to ban the practice — approved House Bill 1176.
The 24-7 sobriety program allows people accused of alcohol or drug-related crimes, often repeat drunk driving, to be released from jail while awaiting trial on the condition that they submit to and pay for frequent tests to prove their sobriety.
Those who fail a test can be immediately sent to prison, after which they can see a judge to request another chance in the program.
It is unconstitutional to imprison people for debt in the United States The former state attorney general who pioneered the 24-7 program he told South Dakota Searchlight in December that he has always instructed the sheriffs who employ her not to arrest participants for non-payment, based on those constitutional concerns.
But some participants were imprisoned for non-payment only.
Last year, a group of them signed an agreement with Pennington County to settle a lawsuit about the practice. The county agreed to pay the primary defendant, Ricky Lee Lookingback, $10,000 in damages, and to pay $1,000 each to 37 other people who had been jailed for their inability to pay.
The settlement dictates that no one can be jailed or threatened with jail time for inability to pay. A federal judge has yet to approve the final settlement, but Lookingback, class counsel, and the county have all signed off on the settlement.
A South Dakota Searchlight History about the settlement inspired Rep. Peri Pourier to present the bill. The Rapid City Republican said that reading the story reminded her that the issue is not new to the Legislature.
In 2022, a account to prohibit detention for inability to pay was approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary Committee, but failed by one vote in the Senate.
“I took the bill that passed in 2022 and brought it in” with some final revisions from the state Legislative Research Council, she said.
This year’s bill aligns state law “with clear US Supreme Court precedent that prohibits imprisoning people just because they are poor,” Pourier said.
Her bill specifies that “no defendant may be imprisoned, nor a defendant’s bond or pretrial release revoked, for failure to pay program costs and expenses, unless the court finds that the defendant has the present and continuing ability to pay program costs and expenses.”
In practice, a judge would need to hold a hearing to determine whether a participant has the means to pay program fees and has voluntarily refused to do so before jailing a person who appears sober for testing and does not pay. Unpaid fees may be recorded for payment at a later date.
More legislative news
See all of Searchlight’s coverage of the 2026 legislative session.
Read the last>
Representatives for South Dakota defense and trial attorneys, as well as a lobbyist for the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault, testified in support of the bill.
In 2022, several law enforcement opponents, including representatives from the Attorney General’s Office, testified against the change. Pourier’s bill received no opposition testimony Monday.
“I think these court cases have significantly changed the way the 24-7 program operates in the state of South Dakota,” said Rep. Mary Fitzgerald, R-Saint Onge. who voted against the 2022 version of the bill. “I think this will only put into the statute what the state is already doing now, after these court decisions.”
Representative Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, also voted against the 2022 bill. On Monday, he said he had reviewed Supreme Court cases on the issue of imprisoning the indigent and took note of who was not present at Monday’s hearing.
“I didn’t hear the attorney general here saying, ‘No, no, you’re reading it wrong, this will let people walk easier.’ I didn’t hear the state’s attorneys here saying, ‘don’t do it,’ and I didn’t hear the sheriffs here saying, ‘don’t do it,’” Mortenson said.
Following the committee’s vote, Chairman Mike Stevens, Republican of Yankton, certified the legislation for inclusion on the House of Representatives’ consent calendar. The House votes on these drafts in bulk and only discusses them if a member requests a discussion.