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 .

 

 

two decisions by SD Supreme Court today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    Adjudication of Delinquency Reversed;

 

2)   Out-of-wedlock son permitted to challenge intestate distribution;

 

Summaries follows:

 

INTEREST OF N.A., 2021 S.D. 57:  Minor child was adjudicated as a delinquent based upon allegation that she assaulted a police officer.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the police officer used excessive force in the events which prompted the juvenile to react.  The Court stated:

 

[¶22.] Based upon our de novo review of this constitutional issue, and after considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude Officer Bassett used excessive force to detain N.A. when he grabbed and pulled a non-threatening, non-fleeing, and non-resisting female teenager to the ground in a dark room, without warning.

 

The Court further held that the trial court did not properly analyze and consider the juvenile’s claim of self-defense.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren. 

 

OLSON v. BERGGREN, 2021 S.D. 58:  Deceased’s $ 2 million estate was distributed as an intestate estate, pursuant to filings on behalf of 3 children born of two different marriages.  This intestate distribution was made in 2014.  Deceased also fathered 1 son out-of-wedlock who eventually learned of the intestate distribution and who filed suit in 2019 challenging the distribution and seeking redress. The trial court ruled against the out-of-wedlock son on the basis of summary judgment, holding his claims were untimely.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  

(NOTE: this case is fact intensive and this summary is truly a simple summary.  The interested reader should not hesitate to examine the full opinion for all the details related to the facts and claims asserted by the out-of-wedlock son.)    

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

SD Supreme Court Hands Down 3 New Decisions Today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    Guardianship dispute;

2)   Dismissal of Wrongful Death action reversed;

3)   City and Volunteer Fire Department immunized as to tort claim

 

 

Summaries follows:

 

MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF ADAM, 2021 S.D. 54:  The underlying dispute in this matter is detailed; however the issue as presented and resolved on appeal is relatively straight forward, as set forth in opening paragraph of the Opinion:

 

[¶1.] In this guardianship and conservatorship action, the conservator filed a motion for approval of a settlement agreement reached in a separate civil action  brought by the conservator against the protected person’s son and daughter-in-law.  Three of the protected person’s other children objected to the motion and requested  that they be allowed to present live testimony at the hearing on the conservator’s  motion. The circuit court denied the request but continued the hearing to allow the  children to submit affidavits and briefs. After the hearing, the court granted the  conservator’s motion for approval of the settlement. The objecting children appeal,  asserting the circuit court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing and in approving  the settlement agreement. We affirm. 

 

This decision also rejects a request for appellate attorney fees by the son and daughter-in-law in the amount of $10,933.29 because “the [underlying dispute and] settlement agreement exists solely because of their alleged improper conduct in  their relationship with [the protected person]” and “their participation in this appeal was not necessary to defend the settlement.”

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney. Circuit Judge Sogn sat on this case in lieu of Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

SHEARD v. HATTUM, 2021 S.D. 55:  As explained in ¶1. of the Court’s opinion, “Chalan Hedman and Troy Hattum lost their lives after an explosion and fire at the Hattum Family Farms. Chalan’s estate (the Estate) brought a wrongful death suit against the Hattum Family Farms and individual members of the Hattum family, seeking damages on strict liability and negligence theories.”  The trial court sustained the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all claims.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding:

 

[¶44.] We affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of the negligence claim against the Hattums. We reverse and remand the circuit court’s dismissal of the strict liability claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Troy was acting in the scope of his employment when he welded the tank and whether Chalan assumed the risk. We also leave open the legal question of whether welding a diesel fuel tank is an abnormally dangerous activity.

 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  Circuit Judge Magera sat on this case, in lieu of Justice DeVaney.

 

TAMMEN AND JURGENS v. TRONVOLD, 2021 S.D. 56: This is an action for damages by a motorcyclist and passenger who were injured as a result of a collision with a volunteer member of the Pierre Volunteer Fire Department (PVFD), at which time the member was traveling “to a routine PVFD meeting.”  Both plaintiffs suffered life-threatening injuries and were required to have their left legs amputated above their knees.  The trial court granted summary judgment to both the City of Pierre and the PVFD on the basis that the tortfeasor was not “acting with the scope of his employment when he collided with Plaintiff’s motorcycle.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, stating:

 

[¶36.] Based on our review of the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, we affirm the circuit court’s determination that Plaintiffs failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Tronvold was acting within the scope of his employment or agency. This is because, even if Tronvold is an agent or employee, his ordinary commute to the PVFD meeting placed him squarely within the going and coming rule, precluding liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

 

This ruling is unanimous.  This case was argued on October 5, 2020, at which time Retired Chief Justice Gilbertson was on the Court and accordingly his vote, not Justice Myren’s, is included in the 5-0 endorsement of the Court’s opinion which is authored by Justice Kern. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Parents prevail in dispute with son-in-law’s bank over security interest in cattle

 

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

 

1)    Parents prevail in dispute with son-in-law’s bank over security interest in cattle

 

Summary follows:

 

 FIRST DAKOTA NATIONAL BANK v. GREGG, 2021 S.D. 53: This dispute is nicely summarized in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion:

 

[¶1.] Arthur and Jerilyn Gregg entered into an oral agreement with their son-in-law, Tyler McGregor, whereby Tyler would feed the Greggs’ cattle to finish in return for payment based on the weight gained by the cattle while in Tyler’s care. Tyler did not inform his lender, First Dakota National Bank (First Dakota), that the Gregg cattle were in his possession. Instead, Tyler represented to the bank that the cattle were his. When Tyler’s fraudulent conduct was uncovered, a dispute arose over whether First Dakota’s security interest in Tyler’s collateral attached to the Greggs’ cattle. After a court trial, the circuit court determined that the Greggs were not estopped from asserting that Tyler had no rights in their cattle, and therefore, First Dakota did not have a security interest in the Greggs’ cattle. We affirm.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

2 decisions by SD Supreme Court today

 The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

1)    CDL license suspended more than 3 years after DUI and Suspended Imposition of Sentence;

2)   Protracted litigation over Farming Partnership’s dissolution

 

Summaries follows:

 

JANS v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2021 S.D. 51:  Driver with Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) pled guilty to DUI and received a Suspended Imposition of Sentence in 2016.  As a result of a “staff oversight,” the Department of Public Safety (DPS) failed to act.  Three years later in 2019, Driver successfully completed probation, was formally discharged and the DUI record was sealed.  Thereafter DPS served notice of 1 year’s disqualification of Driver’s CDL.  The Administrative Law Judge and Circuit Court upheld the 1 year disqualification on the basis of SDCL 32-12A-32 which permits disqualification on the basis of “any offense” which is not more than 4 years old.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting arguments based upon “separation of powers” related to the Suspended Imposition of Sentence and a failure of statutory authority as a result of Driver’s discharge from probation and sealing of the DUI record.  The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  

PAWELTZKI v. PAWELTZKI, 2021 S.D. 52:  This case involves a dispute arising in connection with the dissolution of a farming partnership for 3 brothers.  As stated in ¶1 of the Court’s opinion, “The procedural history of this case is complex and lengthy, spanning approximately eight years.”  The remainder of ¶1 explains the nature of this appeal and its resolution:

[¶1.] After farming with his brothers for over three decades, Gerald Paweltzki brought suit in 2012 to dissolve their farming partnership. He also sserted claims against his brothers for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary uty. Lawrence Paweltzki and Roger Paweltzki agreed that dissolution was arranted; however, they denied that Gerald was entitled to any other relief and asserted multiple counterclaims based on Gerald’s alleged misappropriation of partnership assets. The procedural history of this case is complex and lengthy, spanning approximately eight years. However, this appeal concerns only whether the circuit court erred in denying Lawrence and Roger’s 2013 motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement and to compel arbitration, and whether the circuit court erred in dismissing Lawrence and Roger’s claim for unjust enrichment after a January 2020 trial. We affirm.

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

These decisions may be accessed at

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