Honestly, I’d rather risk a weird look than keep track of another piece of paper floating around my glove box.
I get the appeal of ditching the paper, but my luck is the kind where I’d get pulled over by the one officer who’s still living in 1998. I tried showing my phone once (not in SD, but close) and the guy just stared at it like it was a UFO. Now I keep a crumpled card in my wallet—just in case. Maybe I’m paranoid, but I’d rather be safe than explaining my phone to someone’s grandpa.
Honestly, I get where you’re coming from. I’ve heard stories about officers not accepting digital proof, even though it’s supposed to be fine in most places now. Does anyone know if South Dakota law actually spells out whether digital is always accepted, or is it still up to the officer’s discretion? I’d rather not risk a ticket just because someone isn’t up to date...
I’ve wondered about this too, especially since I’ve seen mixed info online. From what I dug up, South Dakota law (SDCL 32-35-119) does say digital proof is valid, but it also mentions that the officer can’t be held liable for any damage to your device. In practice, though, I’ve heard of a few officers who still seem skeptical or just prefer paper. Personally, I keep a paper copy in my glove box just in case—feels like the safest bet until everyone’s on the same page.
Honestly, I’m with you on the paper backup. I’ve seen folks fumble with their phones at the worst possible time—dead battery, cracked screen, you name it. Plus, if an officer drops your phone or it gets rained on, you’re out a lot more than a piece of paper. Is it just me, or does relying on tech for everything make anyone else a little nervous? Paper’s cheap insurance... literally and figuratively.
Paper’s cheap insurance... literally and figuratively.
Couldn’t agree more—paper never needs a charger. I’ve watched someone try to unlock their phone with a shattered screen while an officer waited. Awkward doesn’t even begin to cover it. Tech is great, but Murphy’s Law loves smartphones.
