In what seems to be a day for contrast in news reports, the Associated Press reports on two decisions by the South Dakota Surpreme Court.
Amy Forliti reports in S.D. high court: Warrants in Sanford probe will be unsealed:
Search warrants will be unsealed in an investigation into billionaire banker-turned philanthropist T. Denny Sanford for possible possession of child pornography, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled.
The unanimous ruling, dated Wednesday and announced Thursday, upheld a lower court ruling that said state law prohibits courts from sealing search warrants and the corresponding lists of what investigators found. The affidavits supporting the search warrants will remain sealed until the investigation is concluded or criminal charges are filed, as allowed under state law.
“Notwithstanding the skilled advocacy on behalf of the parties, the question we confront here is not a close one,” Justice Mark Salter wrote, adding that state law and court rules are clear. “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 for rehearing or the resolution of a petition seeking rehearing, provided we do not grant the petition.”
Under state law, Sanford’s attorneys have 20 days to ask the court to reconsider.
The investigation into Sanford was reported last year by ProPublica and the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Court documents in the case are sealed and refer only to “an implicated individual” — both news outlets went to court for access.
Sanford has not been charged with a crime. His attorney, former South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, did not mention Sanford by name but released a statement saying: “The ultimate fact remains that the investigating authorities have not filed any criminal charges.”
Jon Arneson, an attorney for the Argus Leader, said the opinion’s conclusion “is a very lucid explanation of why we prevailed.” The state attorney general’s office had no comment on the ruling.
Sanford, 85, is the state’s richest man and is worth an estimated $2.8 billion. He has vowed to “die broke,” and his name adorns dozens of buildings and institutions in South Dakota and beyond.
Even after the investigation was reported last year, Sanford donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the South Dakota government and the state’s largest employer, Sanford Health. Some organizations, universities and governments stopped accepting Sanford’s donations. But in South Dakota, some of the state’s top lawmakers, including Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, have not distanced themselves from him.
ProPublica first reported that South Dakota investigators had obtained a search warrant, citing four unidentified sources. Two people briefed on the matter by law enforcement have previously confirmed the existence of the investigation to The Associated Press. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.
Sanford’s electronic devices came to the attention of investigators from the state attorney general’s office after a technology firm reported that child pornography had either been sent, received or downloaded on his device, according to one of the people who spoke to the AP.
Sanford told the AP in 2016 that he wanted his fortune to have a positive impact on children after his hardscrabble childhood in St. Paul, Minnesota. His mother died of breast cancer when he was 4, and by the time he was 8, Sanford was working in his father’s clothing distribution company.
“You can only have so many cars and all of that kind of stuff so put it into something in which you can change people’s lives,” he said in 2016.
Lovely. Sanford's lawyer, former South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, is seeking the Republican endorsement for the 2022 election for his old job.
After the killing of Joseph Boever on the side of the road outside of Highmore last year, current South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg has faced some job insecurity. The other state supreme court-related AP article is part of that unfolding story.
We'd hoped to know how our state representatives here in District 1 had signed petition to hold a special session next month to impeach Ravnsborg, but that is not to be. In Supreme Court rules in non-disclosure of session supporters, the AP South Dakota state wire reports:
The South Dakota Supreme Court is siding with a legislative leader who has refused to disclose the names of lawmakers who signed a petition calling for a special session on impeachment of the state’s attorney general.
The high court ruled Wednesday in a lawsuit brought by the South Dakota Newspaper Association and the Argus Leader against House Speaker Spencer Gosch. The Glenham Republican won’t disclose the names of legislators who signed the petition after earlier announcing that at least two-thirds of the House members had signed it.
A special session on the impeachment of Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg will be held Nov. 9. Gosch has indicated he intends to appoint a panel to recommend whether the conduct of Ravnsborg, who struck and killed a pedestrian in 2020, merits his removal from office.
Gosch has argued the names of the lawmakers are irrelevant, but the plaintiffs say the petition signatures amount to legislative votes that triggered government action and should be released like any other votes cast by legislators.
Chief Justice Steven Jensen wrote the non-disclosure of the names doesn’t in and of itself implicate a question of whether Gosch convened a special session “in excess of the powers of authority conferred by law upon him.”
“As unfortunate as Speaker Gosch’s shielding this information from the public is, for the state’s highest court to allow and encourage opaque government is dumbfounding,” said Argus Leader news director Cory Myers.
Dumbfounding, yes. We are also dumbfounded by the behavior of which the rich and powerful in South Dakota are accused.
There's also this in the Rapid City Journal yesterday: Nick Tilsen's defense attorney accuses Pennington County state's attorney of misconduct.
Photo: The South Dakota State Supreme Court. From April's KELOLAND story, South Dakota Supreme court hears Recreational Marijuana Amendment A appeal. The court have yet to deliver its decision on that one, though some legislators are working on it, we reported on in Wednesday's Under God the people rule: South Dakota pot panel recommends 15% tax rate, mirrors what voters approved with 2020's Amendment A. Sometimes, we can't even about this state.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments