State v. Rolfe
825 N.W.2d 901
S.D.2013Background
- Rolfe was convicted of three counts of first‑degree rape of a minor and 12 counts of possessing, manufacturing, or distributing child pornography, with concurrent life sentences and 12 ten‑year terms.
- Trial court closed the courtroom during the victim A.F.’s testimony under SDCL 23A‑24‑6, which Rolfe challenged as Sixth Amendment public‑trial violation.
- Investigation linked an IP address to a Midcontinent Communications subscriber; subpoenas sought subscriber information.
- Midcontinent provided Rolfe’s contact data; investigators used this to connect to Rolfe’s Rapid City address and later to secure search warrants.
- Rolfe moved to suppress evidence as “fruit of the poisonous tree”; the court denied suppression, ruling no Fourth Amendment privacy expectation in the IP address information.
- The case was remanded to supplement the record for Waller/Farmer/Globe analysis on closure; Rolfe also challenged the subpoenas’ authority, which the court addressed later in the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public trial closure during testimony | Rolfe argues closure violated Sixth Amendment public‑trial right | Rolfe contends closure was improper under Waller/Delaney | Remanded to supplement findings; closure must satisfy Waller standards |
| Authority to issue subpoenas to Midcontinent | State lacked authority to subpoena third‑party records before indictment | Rolfe claims privacy interests in subscriber information | Rolfe had no Fourth Amendment privacy expectation; standing lacking; remand not necessary for this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct. of Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (public trial openness balancing factors; special protections for minors)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (closure requires specific findings and narrowly tailored measures)
- Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir. 1984) (partial closure factors; relevance to Waller standard)
- Farmer, 32 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 1994) (partial closure justification; substantial reason can suffice)
- United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (privacy expectations in third‑party records generally not protected)
- Rapid City Journal v. Delaney, 2011 S.D. 55, 804 N.W.2d 388 (S.D. 2011) (application of closure standards in SD cases; need explicit findings)