SD Supreme Court Upholds Public Access to Search Warrants and Related documents

 The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Public Access to Search Warrants and related documents upheld

 

Summary follows:

 

MATTER OF IMPLICATED INDIVIDUAL, 2021 S.D. 61:  This appeal concerns public access to search warrants and related material.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, ruling against the Implicated Individual.  The basic facts and result at the trial level are summarized in ¶1. as follows:

 

[¶1.] A special agent of the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) sought several search warrants involving the Implicated Individual. The circuit court approved the warrants, which, along with the supporting affidavits and inventories, were filed with the clerk of courts. The circuit court sealed the search warrant files at the agent’s request, but later reconsidered its authority to do so after members of the press sought access to the files. The court ultimately ordered the search warrants and corresponding inventories to be unsealed.

 

The SD Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, stating the following in the final paragraph of the opinion:

 

[¶35.] Notwithstanding the skilled advocacy on behalf of the parties, the question we confront here is not a close one. The express provisions of SDCL 23A-35-4.1 control the access to information issue presented in this case, as specifically contemplated by our rules concerning access to court records. There is nothing new or novel about our statutory analysis and conclusion, and there is no justification for restricting the application of our decision to prospective, future cases. We affirm the circuit court’s amended orders. With the exception of the affidavits in support of the five search warrants, our current order sealing the Supreme Court clerk’s appellate file will be dissolved following the expiration of the time for petitioning forrehearing or the resolution of a petition seeking rehearing, provided we do not grant the petition.

 

The ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Protection Order Unsupported by Findings Reversed

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia: 

 

1. Protection Order Unsupported by Findings Reversed

 

Summary follows:

 

BATCHELDER v. BATCHELDER, 2021 S.D. 60: The trial court entered both a temporary protection order and a permanent protection order against former husband.  The trial court’s order was supported only by checking “a box on the preprinted protection order form indicating it had found the existence of domestic abuse” without issuing “any oral or written findings.”  The SD Supreme Court reversed, recognizing that the trial court was clearly attempting to “to use the permanent protection order remedy to stabilize the high-conflict relationship between the parties,” but it was doing so without regard to whether the wife actually needed protection. The Court stated in ¶25:

 

While we can appreciate the court’s weariness with the parties’ quarreling and its stated goal of addressing [the minor child’s] best interests, the court cannot seek to further this end under a utilitarian view that overlooks the basic principles associated with the protection order remedy.

 

The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

SD Supreme Court today: LWOP affirmed but related restitution order reversed and remanded

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia: 

 

1)    LWOP on 2^nd degree murder conviction upheld, but related restitution order reversed and remanded

 

Summary follows:

 

 STATE v. FALKENBERG, 2021 S.D. 59: Defendant was found guilty of 2^nd degree murder, by jury trial, and sentenced to Life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).  The trial court also entered an extensive order regarding restitution.  On appeal, the SD Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but reversed and remanded the restitution order.  A substantial portion of this opinion is devoted to a discussion of, “[w]hether the circuit court’s restitution order violated [Defendant’s] due process rights and the separation of powers doctrine.”  Portions of the Court’s discussion on restitution are set forth here:

 

[¶54.] On appeal, Falkenberg argues that the circuit court’s restitution award to the Fund and the family was open-ended, speculative, and in contravention of SDCL 23A-28-3 and his due process rights.

* * *

[¶63.] For the reasons explained above, we reverse the portion of the circuit court’s restitution order requiring Falkenberg to pay up to $15,000 to the Fund and up to $40,000 to the victims for future counseling expenses and remand for an evidentiary hearing to address Falkenberg’s objections to the State’s requests. If the State submits adequate foundational evidence, the court may order Falkenberg to pay restitution for expenses that had already been incurred at the time of sentencing as well as the cost of ascertainable counseling expenses which, although not yet incurred, had been requested by the State at the time of sentencing.

 

The ruling is unanimous (5-0) with the Court’s opinion authored by Justice Kern. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .