South Dakota's 1976 special motor vehicle statute let hot rods, customs, and restored cars run with modified suspensions, but an older statute (SDCL 32-15-24) flatly prohibited suspension modifications on vehicles under 6,000 pounds. Which one controls? And how much rulemaking authority does the Department of Public Safety actually have for these specialty vehicles?
Plain-English summary
The 1976 South Dakota legislature created a new category of "special motor vehicle" in SDCL 32-21-1.2 and 32-21-1.3, covering three types: (Type 1) restored vehicles in original body configuration with changed steering, brakes, power train, or suspension; (Type 2) modified vehicles that retained the general appearance of the manufacturer's original but had body, chassis, or engine changes including suspension modifications; (Type 3) custom-built vehicles assembled from fabricated parts or parts from other vehicles. The statute exempted these special motor vehicles from general inspection requirements when they bore a Department of Public Safety decal and were used only "in fair weather on dry, well maintained hard surface roads." The Department was authorized to promulgate minimum safety standards.
Department Secretary Donald Dahlin had a problem. Three years earlier, in 1973, the legislature had enacted SDCL 32-15-24, which prohibited operating any motor vehicle under 6,000 pounds (other than motorcycles) on the public highways with rear or front suspension components "altered or changed to deviate from the basic geometry of the manufacturer's design." That older statute would have flatly outlawed exactly the kind of modified vehicles the 1976 statute had authorized. Which one controlled?
AG William Janklow concluded the 1976 statute prevailed by implied amendment of SDCL 32-15-24. He acknowledged that implied amendment was a disfavored doctrine (citing Security State Bank v. Breen, S.D. 1938), but the conflict here was direct and unavoidable. The 1976 legislative intent was unambiguous: allow limited use of special motor vehicles with modified suspensions under the conditions in SDCL 32-21-1.3 and the Department's rules. If SDCL 32-15-24 still controlled, the 1976 statute would have been a dead letter. So SDCL 32-15-24 was implicitly amended to carve out vehicles that qualified under SDCL 32-21-1.2 and 1.3.
On the Department's rulemaking authority, the AG gave a layered answer. Yes, the Department could set safety rules for special motor vehicles. Yes, the Department could require pre-decal inspection. Yes, the Department could regulate equipment items beyond the four general inspection categories (brakes, steering and suspension, tires and wheels, lights) in SDCL 32-21-3. But all of that authority was bounded by the legislative purpose: special vehicles were meant to be treated differently than general-purpose vehicles. The Department could not use rulemaking to recreate the general inspection regime that the 1976 statute had specifically lifted. Each regulation had to address a "real safety concern" specific to the special vehicles' limited-use nature.
The opinion was a useful template for how an AG handles a statutory conflict where the legislature created a new framework without cleanly amending the existing one. Janklow had to pick a winner, did so based on legislative intent, and then drew boundaries around the agency's implementation authority.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1976. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The special motor vehicle and inspection statutes in SDCL chapter 32-21 have been amended multiple times since 1976. South Dakota's vehicle inspection regime, the Department of Public Safety's rulemaking authority, and the specific provisions on suspension modifications should all be checked against current law. The original 1976 framework has been adjusted over the intervening decades to accommodate evolving custom and restoration practices.
What the opinion meant at the time
For owners of hot rods, restomods, custom cars, and restored vehicles, the opinion was good news. The 1976 statute did mean what it said: special motor vehicles could legally run with modified suspensions, despite the 1973 prohibition. The older statute was still on the books, but no longer applied to vehicles that qualified under the new special motor vehicle definitions.
For Department of Public Safety regulators, the opinion was a green light to develop a tailored regulatory regime for special motor vehicles. The Department could write rules, require inspections, and set decal-issuance criteria. But the AG drew a clear boundary: the Department could not use the rulemaking power to recreate the general inspection regime in everything but name. Each rule had to be justified by a specific safety concern relating to the special vehicles' limited use.
For vehicle restoration businesses, the opinion confirmed that their customers could lawfully register and operate modified vehicles. The legal exposure that had existed under SDCL 32-15-24 was removed, provided the vehicle qualified as a special motor vehicle and was used within the fair-weather, dry-road constraints.
For the Type 3 custom-built category in particular, the opinion gave a regulatory home to vehicles that didn't fit any factory specification at all. Builders of kit cars, hand-fabricated specials, and vehicles assembled from mixed-source parts could register their creations under SDCL 32-21-1.2 Type 3.
For the legislature, the opinion was an implicit suggestion: clean up the conflict between SDCL 32-15-24 and SDCL 32-21-1.2 / 1.3 by explicit amendment. Janklow's implied-amendment finding worked, but legislative cleanup would have given clearer guidance to vehicle owners, regulators, and courts.
Common questions
Q: What was the "fair weather, dry roads" restriction about?
A: SDCL 32-21-1.3 limited the inspection exemption to use "only in fair weather on dry, well maintained hard surface roads." The legislature wanted to ensure that modified vehicles, which might not have met standard inspection criteria for adverse conditions, were not operated in conditions where their modifications could create safety problems. Special motor vehicle owners could not use the decal to drive a modified vehicle in snow, rain, or on rough roads.
Q: What were the three types of special motor vehicle?
A: Type 1 was a restored vehicle in original body configuration, possibly with changed mechanical systems. Type 2 was a modified vehicle that kept the general appearance of the factory original but with body, chassis, engine, suspension, or other changes. Type 3 was a custom-built vehicle assembled from fabricated parts or parts taken from existing vehicles. The categories captured the three main approaches to non-factory cars: restoration, restomod, and full custom build.
Q: What was "implied amendment"?
A: A doctrine of statutory interpretation where a later statute is held to amend or modify an earlier one without explicit amendment language. South Dakota law (and most state law) disfavors implied amendment because the legislature is presumed to know how to amend statutes explicitly. But when two statutes cannot both be given full effect and the legislative intent is clear, courts will read the later one as implicitly amending the earlier.
Q: Could the Department set very stringent safety rules?
A: The opinion authorized "reasonable" safety rules tied to genuine safety concerns. The Department could require, for example, that modified suspensions still permit safe steering control at posted speed limits. But the Department could not impose rules so stringent that they effectively recreated the general inspection regime for vehicles the statute had exempted.
Q: What about brake, light, and other equipment beyond suspension?
A: SDCL 32-21-3 listed four inspection categories: brakes, steering and suspension, tires and wheels, and lights. The general inspection exemption in SDCL 32-21-1.3 covered all of those for special motor vehicles. But the Department could regulate other safety-relevant equipment (windshields, mirrors, etc.) as part of its safety rule authority, again subject to the genuine-safety-concern limit.
Q: Did the opinion address modifications on heavier vehicles (over 6,000 pounds)?
A: SDCL 32-15-24's prohibition applied only to vehicles under 6,000 pounds. So the 1976 statute's interaction with the 1973 prohibition mattered only for that weight class. Heavier vehicles weren't subject to the 1973 prohibition in the first place.
Background and statutory framework
South Dakota's regulation of modified vehicles in the 1970s reflected a tension common across states. On one hand, custom and restored cars were popular hobbies with strong cultural roots, particularly in rural states with rich automotive traditions. On the other hand, safety regulators worried that modified vehicles could create hazards if used like ordinary daily drivers in adverse conditions.
The 1973 SDCL 32-15-24 had taken a hard line: no suspension modifications, period, on lighter vehicles. By 1976, the legislature had reconsidered and built a more nuanced framework. Special motor vehicles got a status that recognized their unique character but constrained their use to conditions where modifications were less risky. The Department was empowered to police the safety dimension through rules.
Janklow's implied-amendment analysis was textually careful. The legislative intent behind the 1976 enactment was clear from the statutory text itself: "may contain changed steering, brakes, power train or suspension systems." That language couldn't be reconciled with SDCL 32-15-24's flat prohibition without implicit amendment. The two cases the AG cited (Board of Regents v. Carter and Watertown School District v. Thyen) anchored the analysis in standard interpretation rules: plain meaning and legislative intent.
The Department's rulemaking constraint was a guard against agency overreach. South Dakota AG opinions in this era often included guardrails on administrative authority. Agencies could implement legislation, but they could not use rulemaking to undo the legislature's specific carve-outs. The "cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly" principle the opinion invoked was a recurring theme in administrative law.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 32-15-24 (suspension alteration prohibition for under-6,000-pound vehicles)
- SDCL 32-21-1.2 (special motor vehicle types)
- SDCL 32-21-1.3 (special vehicle exemption and rulemaking)
- SDCL 32-21-1.4 (related 1976 enactment)
- SDCL 32-21-2, 32-21-3 (general vehicle inspection)
- 1976 Session Laws ch. 195
Cases:
- Board of Regents v. Carter, 228 N.W.2d 621 (S.D. 1975)
- Watertown Independent School District No. 1 of Codington County v. Thyen, 159 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 1968)
- Security State Bank v. Breen, 277 N.W. 497 (S.D. 1938)
Source
Original opinion text
Authorized regulation of special motor vehicles under Chapter 32-21
Dear Mr. Dahlin:
You have requested an opinion from this office in regard to the following factual situation.
FACTS:
SDCL 32-21-1.2 adopted in 1976, establishes three types of special motor vehicles and defines each type. In both the Type I and Type II vehicles, the text states that those vehicles may contain changed or changes and modifications to the steering and suspension systems. SDCL 32-21-1.3 exempts those special vehicles, defined in SDCL 32-21-1.2, when displaying a license decal and being operated under certain conditions, from the general provisions of the vehicle inspection statute. Another provision of the same section requires the Department of Public Safety to promulgate rules for minimum safety standards for these special vehicles.
SDCL 32-21-3, as amended in 1976, provides that the Secretary of Public Safety shall require only the items of brakes, steering and suspension, tires and wheels, and lights to be inspected under the motor vehicle inspection law.
SDCL 32-15-24, adopted in 1973, prohibits the alteration of the suspension system on a vehicle, with an unloaded weight of six thousand pounds or less, operated upon the highways of this state.
Based on the above facts, you ask:
QUESTIONS:
(1) Does SDCL 32-21-1.2 by defining special vehicle types, and providing that these special vehicles may have changed or changes and modifications made to steering and suspension systems, exempt them from the provisions of SDCL 32-15-24?
(2) In the event the answer to question #1 is yes, can the Department of Public Safety promulgate rules setting standards and conditions for steering and suspension systems on these special vehicles, when this specific item is one of the items of equipment covered by the vehicle inspection law (32-21-3) from which they are exempt?
(3) Can the Department of Public Safety make any rules requiring these special vehicles defined in 32-21-1.2, and meeting the requirements of 32-21-1.3, to submit to an inspection and secure approval and certification prior to issuance of the special identification decal?
(4) Providing the answer to question #3 is yes, and being SDCL 32-21-1.3 exempts those special vehicles defined in SDCL 32-21-1.2, when operated under specific conditions from the provisions of Chapter 32-21, can the Department of Public Safety promulgate rules requiring equipment items, other than those required to be inspected under 32-21-3, to meet certain standards and conditions and require an inspection and certification of those items prior to issuance of the special identification decal?
(5) Can the Department of Public Safety promulgate rules requiring the items of equipment on motor vehicles required by various chapters of Title 32 SDCL, excluding those items required to be inspected under 32-21-3, to be inspected and certified for compliance with the statute and for safe condition prior to issuance of the special identification decal?
SDCL 32-21-1.2 and 1.3 provide:
32-21-1.2. For the purposes of this chapter a special motor vehicle shall mean:
Type 1. Those vehicles which are restored to their original body configuration and which may contain changed steering, brakes, power train or suspension systems.
Type 2. Those vehicles changed from the recognized vehicle manufacturers original body configuration, but which retain the general appearance, including changes to the body chassis or engine of the original vehicle. This type may also include changes and modifications to engine, chassis, brake system, power train, steering and suspension systems.
Type 3. Those vehicles, other than type 1 or type 2, custom built with fabricated parts, or parts taken from existing vehicles.
32-21-1.3. Any special vehicle with a decal issued by the department of public safety attached to its license plate and used only in fair weather on dry, well maintained hard surface roads shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. The department of public safety shall promulgate rules for minimum safety standards of such vehicles.
SDCL 31-21-3 provides:
The inspection required by §32-21-2 shall be made and such certificate obtained with respect to the brakes, steering and suspension, tires and wheels and lights as shall be designated by the secretary of public safety.
SDCL 32-15-24 provides:
No person shall operate a motor vehicle with an unloaded weight of six thousand pounds or less, other than a motorcycle, or a type required to be registered under the laws of this state upon a public highway with either the rear or front suspension components altered or changed to deviate from the basic geometry of the manufacturer's design.
SDCL 32-15-24 and SDCL 32-21-1.2 and -1.3, by their terms, are not consistent with each other. SDCL 32-15-24 prohibits people from operating certain motor vehicles with the suspension components altered or changed to deviate from the manufacturer's "basic geometry" design. SDCL 32-2-1.2 and -1.3 specifically allow a special class of motor vehicles which can include "changed or modified suspension systems." This special class of motor vehicles is exempted from the general inspection provisions of chapter 32-21 by SDCL 32-21-1.3. The use of such special motor vehicles, however, is limited to use on hard, dry roads and in accordance with the rules of the Department of Public Safety relating to minimum safety standards for such vehicles.
It is a long-standing rule of statutory construction that words and phrases must be interpreted in their plain meaning and effect. Board of Regents v. Carter, 228 N.W.2d 621 (1975), and that the primary rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Watertown Independent School District No. 1 of Codington County v. Thyen, 159 N.W.2d 122 (1968).
When SDCL 32-21-1.2 and -1.3 were passed by the Legislature in 1976, I believe the legislative intent is evident to allow limited use of such special motor vehicles with modified and changed suspension systems, provided the use of such vehicles was limited to the specified conditions in statute and the applicable rules of the Department of Public Safety. It is true that SDCL 32-15-24 was not specifically amended or repealed, but in view of the provisions of chapter 195 of the Session Laws of 1976, I believe that SDCL 32-15-24 has, by implication, been significantly "amended." I do not make this conclusion lightly since I am aware that repeal and amendment by implication are not favored by the courts. Security State Bank v. Breen, 277 N.W. 497 (1938). In this situation, however, I can see no other reasonable conclusion.
In my opinion, the above-cited rules of statutory analysis and construction in effect give priority to the 1976 Legislative enactment (SDCL 32-21-1.2, -1.3, and -1.4).
If a vehicle meets the requirements of SDCL 32-21-1.2, -1.3, it is my opinion that such vehicle is exempted from the provisions of SDCL 32-15-24.
In regard to your second question, I believe the intent of SDCL 32-21-1.3 is to grant to the Department of Public Safety, authority to make safety rules for such special vehicles. This authority, I believe, includes the power to set reasonable safety standards relating to the operation of these special vehicles. The intent of this 1976 law was clearly to allow the special vehicles to be exempted from the general safety inspection standards for general purpose motor vehicles. Consequently, the safety standards set by the Department in regard to these "special" motor vehicles would have to be reasonable in view of this expressed legislative purpose. The Legislature did not intend that the special motor vehicles would be completely unregulated as to safety factors. The Legislature obviously did intend, however, to regulate them on a different basis than through the general motor vehicle safety inspection law. This legislative distinction and purpose will have to be reasonably reflected in the Department's rules implementing SDCL 32-21-1.3.
In response to your third question, I believe that in implementing SDCL 32-21-1.3, the Department could make the decision that public safety required a safety inspection prior to the issuing of a license plate decal. This inspection would, however, have to take into account the above-expressed legislative purpose behind SDCL 32-21-1.3.
In response to your fourth question, I believe the answer is YES, provided the area regulated is one which is a realistic safety concern and is significant in regard to the safety of such special motor vehicles. Once again, in setting the safety regulations for these special motor vehicles, the Department must exercise reasonable judgment and give deference to the legislative history of this legislation which points out that special vehicles have a limited use capacity and that the Legislature intended these vehicles to be exempt from the provisions of the motor vehicle safety inspection law for general purpose vehicles. If the Department regulation on these special motor vehicles approached the regulatory function from this point of view, I believe the Department could justify a required inspection prior to the decal being issued. The Department cannot, however, use their rule-making powers under SDCL 32-21-1.3 without relation to a particular and real safety need of such special vehicles. The Department cannot do indirectly by regulation what SDCL 32-21-3 and 32-21-1.3 prohibit them from doing directly.
In response to your fifth question, it is hard to be very specific here as the answer would depend on what equipment and what statutory language you would be referring to. The intent of SDCL 32-21-1.2 and -1.3 appears to me to give the Department of Public Safety a reasonable regulatory authority in the interest of public safety over special motor vehicles exempted from the general inspection statutes. I believe the Department can regulate special motor vehicles on matters which, in light of the limited use capabilities and special characteristics of the special motor vehicles, are real safety hazards and concerns. I do not believe it would be appropriate for the Department to attempt to regulate special vehicles in specific areas exempted from regulation for general purpose vehicles of the vehicle inspection laws. The burden of the Department here will be to show that they are addressing a legitimate safety problem with the special vehicles in their regulations, and they are not attempting to do indirectly what SDCL 32-21-1.3 says they cannot do directly. This may be a difficult area to draft regulations in, but I believe the structure and history of the legislation involved leads to the conclusions expressed above.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW
ATTORNEY GENERAL
WJJ:DOC:mhb