The highest court in South Dakota is being asked if a U.S. Supreme Court ruling can impact past drunk driving arrests.
Donovan Siers was arrested for his third DUI in 2008 and his blood alcohol level was nearly three times the limit.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called Missouri v. McNeely that officers need the suspect's consent or a warrant to draw blood.
Siers didn't give his consent and officers took his blood anyway without a warrant. Now he's appealing his conviction to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
"He's asking for McNeely to be applied retroactively," Siers' attorney Mark Kadi said.
Kadi argued in front of the South Dakota Supreme Court Tuesday that the McNeely case should apply and that officers needed a warrant to draw Siers' blood. Kadi believes McNeely should apply to DUI cases past and present.
"What we have here is a new case but we have an old rule coming through a new case so I think that is different," Kadi said.
The South Dakota Attorney General's Office argues that the McNeely decision only applies to cases going forward.
"In South Dakota, McNeely was a change of law," Assistant South Dakota Attorney General Jeffrey Hallem said.
They argue that the McNeely decision should not be applied retroactively.
"Now, applying that after the fact - armchair quarterbacking - that is exactly what this court's decisions regarding retroactivity prohibit," Hallem said.
And it will be up to the justices to make the final decision on how to handle the ruling from the highest court in the country.
The South Dakota Attorney General’s Office argues that if the case is applied retroactively, it could 'open the floodgates' for cases across the state.