Matter of Implicated Individual, 966 N.W.2d 578

A DCI special agent obtained five search warrants in late 2019–early 2020 targeting accounts/data connected to an "Implicated Individual." Warrants, supporting affidavits, and verified inventories were filed with the Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts.
At law enforcement’s request, the circuit court entered orders sealing the warrant files and separate non-disclosure orders prohibiting disclosure that the warrants had been executed.
Reporters from ProPublica and the Argus Leader sought access; the circuit court reopened the question, consolidated the files, allowed the news organizations to participate, and issued a protective order governing interim disclosures.
The circuit court concluded SDCL 23A-35-4.1 prohibited sealing the search warrants and inventories and allowed sealing of only the supporting affidavits, and then ordered the warrants and inventories unsealed (affidavits to remain sealed until termination of the investigation or charging).
The Implicated Individual appealed, arguing (1) the court erred because courts have inherent authority and rule-based discretion to seal records, and (2) any adverse ruling should be applied prospectively only. The State later dismissed its appeal.
The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed: it held SDCL 23A-35-4.1 unambiguously bars sealing warrants and inventories (and permits only temporary sealing of affidavits), rejected the inherent-authority/separation-of-powers claim, and declined to limit the decision to prospective effect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circuit court erred by concluding SDCL 23A-35-4.1 prohibits sealing certain search-warrant records	Court has inherent authority / Rule 05-05 gives courts discretion to restrict access to records; statute should not be read to preclude sealing	SDCL 23A-35-4.1 plainly allows sealing only the supporting affidavit (temporarily) and expressly forbids prohibiting disclosure of the warrant, return, inventory, or the fact an affidavit was filed	Affirmed: statute is clear — courts may seal only the affidavit (until investigation ends or charges filed) and may not prohibit disclosure of the warrant, return, or inventory; rules defer to the statute
Whether the ruling should be applied prospectively only	Retroactive application would be disruptive; limit to future filings	The ruling interprets existing statutory text (not a new rule), so retroactive effect is appropriate	Affirmed: no prospective-only relief — interpretation applies to existing sealed warrant files as well

Burgard v. Benedictine Living Communities, 680 N.W.2d 296 (S.D. 2004) (sets and explains the civil prospective-retroactivity factors)
Larsen v. Sioux Falls Sch. Dist. No. 49-5, 509 N.W.2d 703 (S.D. 1993) (articulates considerations for retroactivity analysis)
Hohm v. City of Rapid City, 753 N.W.2d 895 (S.D. 2008) (presumption that judicial decisions operate retroactively unless stated otherwise)
State v. Garcia, 834 N.W.2d 821 (S.D. 2013) (discusses disruptive-effect concerns in retroactivity context)
SBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Plouf Family Trust, 821 N.W.2d 842 (S.D. 2012) (recognizes a trial court’s authority to reconsider prior orders)
Associated Press v. State, 888 A.2d 1236 (N.H. 2005) (upholds that court rules and statutes governing access to records can coexist)