Milstead v. Johnson
2016 SD 56
S.D.2016Background
- Defendant Joseph Patrick Johnson was arrested by Minnehaha County detectives and later indicted, including two counts of simple assault against Detective Ryan Qualseth, the only officer involved in the physical altercation.
- Johnson served a subpoena duces tecum on Sheriff Milstead seeking “all disciplinary records/reports, disciplinary actions or complaints” from the personnel files of Detectives Joe Bosman, Craig Butler, and Ryan Qualseth.
- Sheriff Milstead moved to quash; the circuit court denied the motion in part and ordered the sheriff to produce for in camera review: complaints against Qualseth for excessive force/aggression, disciplinary records involving the incident, and disciplinary actions taken against any of the three officers related to the matter.
- Sheriff Milstead obtained an intermediate appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court; the State supported the sheriff. The central legal question was whether personnel files of law enforcement officers are discoverable under SDCL 23A-14-5 (Rule 17(c)).
- The Supreme Court adopted the federal Nixon three-part test (relevancy, admissibility, specificity) for Rule 17(c) production and required a factual predicate showing materiality before permitting in camera review of confidential personnel files.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law-enforcement personnel files are discoverable under SDCL 23A-14-5 (Rule 17(c)) | Johnson: files are relevant to whether Qualseth was the aggressor and necessary to impeach/provide defense | Sheriff/State: subpoena is an oppressive fishing expedition; records are confidential and irrelevant absent a showing | Personnel files are not automatically discoverable; Rule 17(c) requires the Nixon showing (relevant, admissible, specific) before production |
| Whether the circuit court properly ordered in camera review of portions of the three detectives’ files | Johnson: in camera review appropriate because files may contain material impeachment/exculpatory evidence | Sheriff: in camera review unnecessary because Johnson failed to show likelihood of material evidence; subpoena burdensome | Court erred — Johnson failed to meet Nixon standards; in camera review improperly ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (due process may require in camera review of privileged files when material to defense)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (defendant’s right to effective cross-examination can outweigh confidentiality interests)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (Rule 17(c) production requires showing of relevancy, admissibility, and specificity)
- Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1951) (Rule 17(c) intended to expedite trial, not to provide broad discovery)
- United States v. Iozia, 13 F.R.D. 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1952) (early formulation of test requiring good cause for Rule 17(c) production)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability outcome would differ if evidence disclosed)
- Karlen v. State, 589 N.W.2d 594 (S.D. 1999) (South Dakota ordered in camera review of privileged records when defendant made case-specific showing of materiality)
- People v. Gissendanner, 399 N.E.2d 924 (N.Y. 1979) (defendant must set forth factual predicate showing personnel file likely contains material information)
- Maynard v. Heeren, 563 N.W.2d 830 (S.D. 1997) (procedural guidance for in camera review; earlier South Dakota approach to privileged records)