Case Explained: SD Supreme Court hears arguments on police officers invoking Marsy’s Law – Legal Perspective

The South Dakota Supreme Court tackles the age-old question famously posed by William Shakespeare: “What’s in a name?”

Before an Augustana University audience, the state’s high court heard oral arguments over whether Marsy’s Law grants legal protections to a person’s name.

Marsy’s Law provides protection for crime victims, including things like the right to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse. It was passed by South Dakota voters in 2016 at the ballot.

The state Supreme Court took up the question if the law allows police officers to have their names redacted from public filings if they’re a victim of a crime. State v. Albaidhani dates back to an incident last April.

Two Sioux Falls police officers attempted to stop Samir Albaidhani for a parole violation. Albaidhani is alleged to have violated parole, was driving a stolen vehicle and suspected of being armed. He fled the car and fired gunshots at the two Sioux Falls officers, injuring one of them. Both officers filed gunshots at Albaidhani but neither hit him. Attorney General Marty Jackley’s office released the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation report that ruled the Sioux Falls officers were justified in shooting.

He eluded the Sioux Falls police and allegedly stole another vehicle. Law enforcement from the Beresford Police Department and South Dakota Highway Patrol chased Albaidhani in Beresford. Once he was stopped, the DCI report said Albaidhani fired at the law enforcement and the returned fire. One of the Highway Patrol troopers struck Albaidhani with his vehicle, and another officer shot him in the right arm. He was taken to a nearby hospital for his non-life-threatening injuries. A second DCI report claimed the South Dakota Highway Patrol Officer was justified in shooting.

When filing the legal paperwork in the case, the Minnehaha County State’s Attorney’s Office used the names of the Sioux Falls officers. The officers invoked their right under Marsy’s Law requesting the circuit court to seal the filings. They agreed to give Albaidhani and his legal counsel filings with their names on the condition they didn’t disclose the copies or discuss the officers’ names.

The circuit court ruled Marsy’s Law doesn’t prevent a name from disclosure. The circuit court declined to rule whether Marsy’s Law applies to law enforcement officers. Marsy’s Law has faced criticism, as some law enforcement officers have used the state law to remain anonymous in shootings.

The officers appealed.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both parties Wednesday at Augustana University in Sioux Falls.

Albaidhani’s legal counsel abandoned the issue of whether protections under Marsy’s Law extend to police officers and law enforcement.

Kylie Beck is the attorney representing Albaidhani. She argued the name shouldn’t be protected. That’s because it could interfere with her client’s trial rights under the Constitution.

“Just us having it doesn’t allow us to present our argument, doesn’t allow us to present a complete defense,” Kylie Beck said. “We can’t send off subpoenas for information on these individuals because their names would be protected. We’d have to send off a subpoena for John Doe.”

Kylie Beck did contend that a name is information, which Marsy’s Law protects. However, she holds that the circuit court came to the right conclusion.

“What exactly is a name? You would need a name in order to pursue charges. You need a name to be able to investigate,” Kylie Beck argued. “While I understand the position is the name could be used to locate or harass, just the sheer fact of a name alone is not identifying. It’s actions that could take place afterwards, which none of that has been alleged here.”

That means the state Supreme Court must weigh the rights of a victim under Marsy’s Law against the Constitutional rights of a person on trial.

Jeffrey Beck is the attorney representing the officers and the officers’ police union in this case. The main argument he brings is that the law enforcement’s names could be used to locate or harass them.

“Here this was just public filings. We didn’t want that information for public consumption,” Attorney Jeff Beck said. “When we look at what can be done today for social media, to look it up, the ability to harass.”

He told the Supreme Court something to “bear in mind.”

“Marsy’s Law is an opt-in. To exercise those rights, you have to make that request. It’s a common practice now, and all of the members of this court have sat in trial courts and seen reports. The attorney general’s office has the SAVIN (Statewide Automated Victim Information & Notification) network. They ask that victim, they give them a Marsy’s Law card, and they have to opt in,” Jeff Beck said. “When they opt in, now they’ve exercised those rights. So, in some of those limited circumstances we would have to do those balancing tests when maybe an individual wants to exercise those rights. And the defendant would say, ‘Well now you’re infringing on my right.’ So, now we carve that out to address that incident-specific issue.”

The court pushed back in their questioning on the claims of both parties that it needs to be an “all-or-nothing approach.”

Justice Mark Salter questioned both attorneys on that, asking if the determination could be made by the courts.

“The parties are saying, I mean this is an all-or-nothing proposition as this case comes to us. What if it’s not? What if it’s not all-in with the names or all-out with the names? What if, and our cases suggest this, what if it is some combination of things that’s designed to contemplate everybody’s interests? That could happen couldn’t it?” Justice Salter asked attorney Kylie Beck during the oral argument.

A ruling is expected in the coming months