989 N.W.2d 517
S.D.2023Background
- Law enforcement executed five search warrants in an investigation involving T. Denny Sanford; the warrant files (warrants, returns, inventories, and affidavits) were initially sealed.
- In an earlier appeal, this Court held SDCL 23A-35-4.1 permits sealing affidavits only until the investigation ends or an indictment is filed, and that warrants/returns/inventories must be unsealed.
- After the State notified the court the investigation was complete (May 27, 2022), the press moved to unseal the affidavits.
- Sanford sought to inspect the sealed affidavits and participate in redacting personally identifying or sensitive material before public release; the State and Press opposed delaying unsealing.
- The circuit court denied Sanford’s pre-unsealing inspection/redaction request, said it would itself redact routine personally identifying information (email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers, birth dates), and ordered the affidavits unsealed.
- Sanford appealed the denial; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying pre-unsealing inspection and in handling redactions itself.
Issues
| Issue | Sanford's Argument | Press/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sanford was entitled under SDCL 15-15A-13 to inspect affidavits before unsealing to prepare redaction challenges | Sanford: as the implicated party he must view affidavits pre-release to invoke SDCL 15-15A-13 and propose redactions | Press/State: SDCL 23A-35-4.1 requires unsealing once the investigation is complete; 15-15A-13 supplies procedure for prohibiting access but does not create a right to pre-release inspection | Court: No. 15-15A-13 does not require pre-unsealing inspection; denial affirmed. |
| Whether SDCL 15-15A-13 or judicial rules override the statutory mandate of SDCL 23A-35-4.1 to unseal affidavits after investigation ends | Sanford: 15-15A-13 and court rules afford protections and control over access, so the court must allow procedures before release | Press/State: Legislature’s SDCL 23A-35-4.1 plainly mandates unsealing after investigation ends; rules do not conflict with statute | Court: SDCL 23A-35-4.1 controls; rules do not supersede statute. |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to allow parties to participate in redactions and instead performing routine redactions itself | Sanford: party participation is necessary to protect privacy and other interests | Press/State: court redaction of routine personally identifying information avoids delay, leaks, and added litigation; court is competent to make such redactions | Court: No abuse of discretion; court appropriately exercised its discretion to redact routine identifiers and avoid further delay. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re an Appeal by an Implicated Individual, 966 N.W.2d 578 (S.D. 2021) (interpreting SDCL 23A-35-4.1; affidavits may be sealed only until investigation ends or indictment filed)
- In re Estate of Jones, 970 N.W.2d 520 (S.D. 2022) (review of protective-order-like discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Ralios, 783 N.W.2d 647 (S.D. 2010) (redaction decisions lie within trial court discretion)
- In re Yanni, 697 N.W.2d 394 (S.D. 2005) (court rules are to be read according to their plain meaning)
- Coester v. Waubay Twp., 909 N.W.2d 709 (S.D. 2018) (definition and application of abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Thom v. Barnett, 967 N.W.2d 261 (S.D. 2021) (de novo review applies to constitutional and statutory interpretation)